Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

WikiProject Tree of Life

Main pageTalkArticle templateTaxonomic resourcesTaxoboxesParticipantsArticle requests

Guidance needed for etymology of taxon names

It would be very helpful to have some concrete guidance on this matter since it comes up frequently.

I see that this topic has come up in multiple past discussions already ([1], [2], [3]), but—partially because there's a lot of non-linear discussion to read through—I wasn't able to determine if a clear consensus was reached or if any guidance had actually come about after those discussions.

Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction? Or, does this issue still need to be addressed? MossOnALog^Talk 01:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@MossOnALog Earlier this year, a group of editors of this project (after the first discussion that you linked) got together to start drafting this essay. It's gone inactive, but it touches on several issues that we gathered consensus around, so it will probably be helpful to you. It might be a good idea to ask for feedback on the specific issues you have in mind, and also to get us active on the draft again. Speaking of, @Yummifruitbat @MtBotany @Plantdrew (non-exhaustive list of pings) are there plans to continue development of the essay/publish it? — Snoteleks (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@Snoteleks thank you! And thanks to all the editors who've contributed to that essay. MossOnALog^Talk 05:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me like Yummifruitbat's essay is ready to publish (i.e., remove Category:User essays in development, add a different category, and link to it from somewhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms (which also isn't "published", I guess)). Plantdrew (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a bit due to IRL pressures so this is among the things I've neglected. I can't recall whether all the feedback from people had been folded in, so I'll take a look at that over the next week and aim to get it published shortly. Thanks for the ping. YFB ¿ 11:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

While I have not thoroughly reviewed these two resources (i.e., User:Yummifruitbat/Biological etymology and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms), I think they are great resources that look ready to be published, or just about ready if not. Even if they still need polishing or if some things still need some discussion, at least discussions on these matters could be condensed into the talk pages of these pages rather than spread out across various articles where things are less visible. Having these to reference—and therefore keep edit summaries and other discussions concise—would be very helpful and make striving for consistency across articles much more efficient. If I can help contribute in a specific way, please let me know (though my time may be limited over the next couple weeks with holidays). Thank you again for everyone's efforts on this. MossOnALog^Talk 15:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Late here, but I would support publishing this now or soon without much change. As an essay, it does not require consensus but it does summarize important issues very well and is a useful resource. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

A new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms

I'm happy to report that a new, fully monophyletic classification of diatoms is in press (Kociolek et al., 2025). This classification is generally based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny. The three authors of this article are some of the authors from the Alverson et al., 2025 article. The problem about this article is that it wasn't published in any journal, it's just in press, so not sure if we would use it now. I always thought a classification based on the published Alverson et al., 2025 phylogeny would make sense, and I also thought a classification would get published sometime. Pinging @Snoteleks and @Plantdrew per our past discussions. Jako96 (talk) 10:45, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

YES!!! This is amazing news, I hope it gets peer-reviewed soon so we can use it. But how did you even find this? — Snoteleks (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I was busy, so I couldn't reply you here. I found it when I searched "Biddulphiophyceae" in Google Scholar. Jako96 (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

AlgaeBase also started to partially follow that paper, see Corethrophyceae for example. Jako96 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

The article is published online, see PubMed or Wiley. The full text and pdf are available via the Wikipedia Library.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out Jako96 (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally!!! — Snoteleks (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, how nice. So, uh, Snoteleks, do you think we should treat the Bacillariophyta as a phylum, or we should've kept the Ochrophyta as a phylum (Bacillariophyta would be an unranked clade)? Jako96 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely an unranked clade, Ochrophyta should be the phylum — Snoteleks (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not Gyrista as a phylum (C.-S., 2017) :-)? The ranking of clades is not an objective attribute, it is based on the POV of the individual study and their authors. It is important to have the correct hierarchy of clades in the taxobox, to find a consensus is sometimes very difficult; my "favorite" example are nucleariids with ranking from a regnum to an order. Well, sometimes the suffix gives some suggestion; in case Bacillariophyta vs. Ochrophyta not applicable. Petr Karel (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Petr Karel Several of us have already discussed this at length throughout 2025, but to give you a summary: Cavalier-Smith's system was unique and largely unsupported by the larger scientific consensus when it comes to higher names and ranks, and even contradicted itself across time. Since nobody else supports it, nobody is updating it to match current knowledge post-mortem. The scientific consensus is that both Ochrophyta (or Heterokontophyta) and Oomycota are regarded as independent phyla/divisions, and therefore a phylum containing both contradicts this. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The C.-S. phylum Gyrista was only an illustration (ment as a joke) of the relativity of higher taxon ranking. Petr Karel (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you, it's incredibly subjective and sometimes gets ridiculous :) — Snoteleks (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I really like it when a phylogenetic study is followed up with a taxonomic one. Too often those doing the phylogenetic work are not so interested in solid taxonomic conclusions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  20:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Problematic edits

@Jts1882, Snoteleks, and Petr Karel: The changes purportedly based on this paper by @Jako96: need to be vetted. They have been willy-nilly changing taxonavigation without updating articles resulting in things like Aulacoseira being listed as a genus of Melosiraceae in the taxabox, but leaving article prose discussing Aulacoseiraceae. IF the genus is truly moved then shouldn't the family be iehter dissolved without the type genus, or renamed and circumscribed to reflect a changed type genus? Jako96 also made a taxonomy change that (jusding by the comment involved Let's assign this directly to Coscinodiscophyceae for now, as the 2025 revision of diatom taxonomy excluded Aulacoseira from the Aulacoseiraceae and Aulacoseirales is NOT actually in the paper at all). I'm guessing little to no coverage in the paper for the fossil record, and so the move is pure OR/SYNTH.--Kevmin § 23:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Partula turgida

Would someone more familiar with the subject be able to look at Partula turgida? As an outsider who has been spending a bit of time with species articles recently, what I gather is that P. turgida and P. clarkei were messed up historically. That is, people thought they had P. turgica, but they really had P. clarkei, both of which are now extinct. As such, a lot of the information we have about P. turgica is incorrect. 0x16w thus moved the P. turgida article to P. clarkei, then seems to have copied the information back over to P. turgida for review as some of the information may be accurate. (0x16w, correct me if I'm wrong on your rationale) This should be reviewed fairly quickly, though, to aid with confusion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Sepiida/Sepiina

In August last year, the article Sepiida was renamed to Sepiina based on WoRMS and citing WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. On the face of it, I can see how this makes sense because WoRMS lists Sepiina as the one and only suborder of Sepiida in its taxonomy presently. However, I believe this should actually be reverted, because I think WoRMS is in error continuing to give Sepiina as a valid suborder now that the former Sepiolina is its own order Sepiolida, and so I started a discussion at Talk:Sepiina about this. But since I never got a response there, I bring this here instead to get more attention.

Also, happy new year everyone! Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

As the editor who (re)created the page, i think we should indeed stick to the "main" taxonomic ranks. Anthropophoca (talk) 02:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Weird template

Hi, I came across {{Txw}} today. What does it stand for, and what does it do? Primefac (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

It's outputting a list of taxonomic synonyms, with the first item as the accepted name. William Avery (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Is that really the way the output is intended to appear? It's a technically bad format, as it does not italicize the first occurrence of the scientific name in the template. Frankly, that's terrible. Is there no way to fix the template so the output is correctly formatted? Dyanega (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dyanega: - fixed the italics display. A quickfix for now. Shyamal (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Developayellidae § Requested move 8 January 2026

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Developayellidae § Requested move 8 January 2026. Jako96 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Guidance on writing articles about families and genera

Hi all! I am a fairly new editor and enjoyed improving the Physella acuta article. I'd like to try my hand at Apple snail next, but am a little overwhelmed. Writing about a single species is much simpler than writing about an entire family. I also find it hard to justify a family's trait when sources usually only discuss a subfamily or even species. Are there any Wikipedia guides on writing about higher taxonomic ranks? Barbalalaika 🐌 21:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I have worked on a few articles on genera, and it is hit or miss on how much coverage you can find. Do you use Google Scholar? Sometimes I could find enough for a brief, but informative article, such as Floridobia or the somewhat longer Pharaxonotha. Sometimes, I had to settle for an article that was just a list of species, such as Aphaostracon. Sometimes sources about individual species will include statements about higher taxons. My impression is that more and more taxonomic articles are coming on line, although you often have to search under various combinations of terms to find everything. Once you have completed enough edits, and otherwise qualify, you can use the WP:Wikipedia Library, which will give you access to many sources that are behind paywalls. Donald Albury 22:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Donald. I use Google Scholar and sometimes Web of Science (which is good for those combinations of terms). I have a feeling that Apple snail will have the opposite problem in the sense that it sees a lot of coverage, although attention varies by subfamily and genus. Here's where I wonder how far I could generalise a statement. But since there seems to be no other way other than diving right in, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

I had no idea about the existence of Wikipedia Library, thank you for bringing it up! Barbalalaika 🐌 15:37, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

And I see that you are 29 edits and five days away from qualifying for access to the Wikipedia Library. Check it out next week. Donald Albury 22:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I too generally work on species. Based on the limited work I've done with higher taxonomic ranks, I'd suggest spending some time (a couple months) expanding and researching the articles on some constituent taxa, so you can gather up enough good sources and get a broad enough impression of the taxon to know what's important. The higher the taxonomic rank, the longer it takes to work on the article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I see there's no silver bullet - just cold, hard work :P Working on the constituent taxa is a great idea, I'll do that! Thank you so much for your input! Barbalalaika 🐌 15:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I've worked on articles ranging from kingdoms to species. My take is that it depends almost exclusively on: 1) how much information you can find (also, feel free to ask here for sources that you cannot access), and 2) how much detail you are willing to write. In Wikipedia, any taxonomic article, regardless of rank, can range from a stub level (barely any citations, poorly written) to a Featured Article. So do not feel pressured by some idea that the family-level article needs to be 10 times as complex and full as the species-level article. Just try to do your best. I think reaching C-class (relatively brief but still well-cited) or even Good Article status is fairly easy for most taxa, but again, it depends on the sources. For reference, here are some family- and genus-level Good Articles I've written: Cafileria, Syssomonas, Urceolus, Hyalospheniidae, Kathablepharididae, Nucleariidae. You will see that the number of references varies a lot (even less than 7); they just have to be reliable and properly used. It's also good if you can add free images. Thank you for joining us in this project! — Snoteleks (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Carl Linnaeus

Carl Linnaeus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Candidozyma auris § Requested move 17 January 2026

An editor has requested that Candidozyma auris be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

iNaturalist and common names

Do we have some sort of guideline on using iNaturalist as a source for common names? Newcomers often use iNat as a source in drafts but, flaky taxonomy aside, I've found the website has an alarming tendency to invent its own vernacular names or, at least, give rarely used ones prominence. Take, for example, Oxythyrea cinctella, which it calls the "Middle Eastern Flower Scarab". I found simply no hits on Google Books for that name, with or without a hyphen in "Middle Eastern" and general search results mostly gave iNaturalist and its mirrors. I wouldn't blame new editors for relying on iNaturalist, but I think we should stamp down on this sort of thing to avoid its invented common names proliferating. Perhaps a sentence added somewhere to one of our guidance pages urging caution sourcing common names to iNaturalist?

Notes

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 03:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

"Common names" should not be sourced to iNaturalist. iNaturalist has a policy that common names shouldn't just be made up on iNaturalist, but that does happen some anyway, and iNaturalist discourages getting common names from Wikipedia (they shouldn't be getting made up here either, but iNaturalist recognizes that does happen). There was a case where fish common names were getting made up on Wikipedia and iNaturalist (it wasn't clear which site had them first, but the names were showing up on both in a short time frame). There was a case where an iNaturalist curator with BugGuide editing privileges was making up common names on BugGuide (which AFAIK doesn't have any policy against that) and the adding them to iNat.

Any common name from iNaturalist is supposed to be able to be sourced to somewhere else. Any common name on Wikipedia should be able to be sourced to somewhere else. Wikipedia/iNaturalist should not be employed in concert to launder vernacular names that somebody with editing privileges on either site just made up.

Sourcing somewhere else isn't necessarily perfect; both Wikipedia and iNaturalist have both picked up common names that had clear misspellings from IUCN and USDA PLANTS (and Wikipedia still has a bunch of malformed redirects for IUCN common names that had diacritics in them).

Notes

Plantdrew (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I second everything Plantdrew said. I've been an iNaturalist user for almost 7 years (I actually started editing because of a friend I met through the site!) so I am very aware of its shortcomings...
iNaturalist allows any registered user to add common names to taxa, and despite discouragement of made-up names Plantdrew mentions, this is frequently misused (or outright abused). This ranges from good faith attempts to add newly invented but otherwise inoffensive common names, to joke names, to names that are intended to cause offence, and there are a few known "problem users" who frequently add new names. I really can't think of any situation in which iNaturalist is appropriate as a citation, besides references to the website's own official policies, statements, etc. It's not suitable as a taxonomic framework (as you note, iNaturalist can be very inconsistent - some groups are automatically updated based on trusted data sources, but many are only updated when a user flags the taxon manually. This means that it sometimes lags behind new developments, but also that it sometimes jumps the gun by committing to changes that aren't widely accepted by the broader scientific community and are eventually rolled back. In any case, it is better to cite the source that iNaturalist uses for its taxonomy of a given group than to cite the middleman) and all non-official content is user-generated. If we're to introduce a warning about citing iNaturalist to this project's guidance, I say discourage all use of iNaturalist observations/data as citations, not just for common names. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything Plantdrew and Ethmostigmus have said, and I would support adding clear guidance against using iNaturalist as a source in this context, if that guidance doesn't already exist. MossOnALog^Talk 15:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Most of the time someone can just point out it is WP:UGC and leave it at that for guidance. Maybe WP:FLORA and WP:FAUNA could have a short sentence saying iNaturalist is UGC and is not a reliable source for names or other content, but that's probably the most need I'd envision. KoA (talk) 15:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The question, I think, is this: since most of the editors who are adding common names from iNat are not taxonomists, nor aware of Wikipedia policy, if some editor reverts one of their additions and cites WP:UGC, is that going to educate them and get them to stop adding common names, or is it simply going to provoke arguments? I'm slightly concerned that we might need a bigger proverbial hammer, such as explicitly including "common names from iNaturalist" to the list of unacceptable sources given in the UGC policy statement itself. Dyanega (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

iNaturalist is already designated as a generally unreliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#iNaturalist (and there's a shortcut for that, WP:INATURALIST). We do have a fair number of articles that cite iNat, in part because iNat has a feature that makes it easy to create a bare-bones Wikipedia article that cites iNat. I think it is better to cite iNat than to not cite any source at all, but iNat citations should be getting replaced with better sources (an "unreliable source" on Wikipedia is not a "deprecated source", so there isn't necessarily any urgency to replace it). If it would be helpful to add mentions of iNat's unreliability to any more specifically ToL-related policy/guideline pages on Wikipedia, go for it. Plantdrew (talk) Plantdrew (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

That WP:INATURALIST link definitely helps with what Dyanega was concerned with, at least when it comes to reactive guidance. Could be some areas you mention to be proactive on a little more, but I also wonder how many of the people adding those iNat references are going to those pages first before editing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't it also go the other way around where iNat generated text by pulling from Wikipedia? Maybe I'm mixing it up with a different website that comes up in Google searches when you put in a species name. It's definitely been an issue though when it comes to species-related sources overall. KoA (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

iNat displays Wikipedia articles in their About pages, and is pretty transparent that Wikipedia is the source.

I'm not sure exactly how that works on the technical side; I don't think they necessarily display a current version of the article if it was last edited seconds ago, but they don't host months/years old versions of articles unlike some other websites that have forked Wikipedia. I do know that Wikidata drives the connection between iNat and Wikipedia; iNat won't display a Wikipedia article until iNat and en.wiki are linked to the Wikidata item.

Encyclopedia of Life also displays Wikipedia articles. I haven't paid enough attention to EOL to have any idea about the details there. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Weigeltisauridae in the Sauria taxobox

There has been some edit warring about whether Weigeltisauridae should be included in the taxobox for Sauria based on a single paper result. The paper cited for Weigeltisauridae being within Sauria [4], is about sauropterygians and not about diapsid systematics. The only part where a weigeltisaurid is included in the paper is in a single cladogram focused on sauropterygians where Coelurosauravus is found closer to Archelosauria than to Lepidosauria [5]. This result is never commented on in the paper. Other scientific literature on the topic universally concludes that weigeltisaurids are diapsids that lie outside of Sauria e.g. [6] [7], [8] [9]. I think fishing out random odd phylogenetic results from single papers that aren't even commented on in the paper in question is undue. I think something has to be a widely held, even if minority opinion for it to warrant taxobox inclusion. I started a conversation here because I think barely anyone watches the Sauria talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seems I am inadvertently part of this edit war. I added Weigeltisauridae back with a questionmark after adding the citation mentioned in the edit summary but not added to the article. I agree that it is inappropriate. The paper only included Coelurosauravus and even if this is correct, a study with other members of the Weigeltisauridae would be needed to put the family there against existing consensus, and genera with disputed position are not needed in the taxobox. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

As early as 2009, a paper supported the view that Weigeltisauridae belonged to Sauria, and I recall that a small number of other papers have also supported this view since then. Chanchu0518 (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Although which has received support from only a few papers, what exactly is wrong with marking it with a question mark? Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

For example, this article

Sobral, Gabriela; Sues, Hans-Dieter; Müller, Johannes (2015). "Anatomy of the Enigmatic Reptile Elachistosuchus huenei Janensch, 1949 (Reptilia: Diapsida) from the Upper Triassic of Germany and Its Relevance for the Origin of Sauria". Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria. Chanchu0518 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Only in some of the phylogenetic trees that used the particular matrices of Chen et al. 2014. Buffa et al. 2024 [10] states: all recent studies recover weigeltisaurids as stem-saurian diapsids. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @LittleLazyLass:, @NGPezz: and @SlvrHwk: (sorry if I've been pinging you a lot recently) for their input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Definitely agree that the current evidence does not support including Weigeltisauridae in the Sauria taxobox. Not that we need further support in the overwhelming consensus already established by the first comment, but here is another recent publication on amniote phylogenetics using an independent matrix that supports a stem-group position for weigeltisaurids (also the most recent version of the Buffa matrix here). Using either non-relevant ([11]) or decade-old ([12]) publications to support a saurian placement is quite blatantly in opposition to the substantial (and recent) research performed more directly on the clade in question. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In an era where basal reptile phylogeny is absurdly unstable, it does seem like one of the few consensus positions is that weigeltisaurids are non-saurian. It's certainly worth discussing alternative proposals on the family's article, but to state outright that "Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria", as if it's a true statement, is not credible. It seems to me that Chanchu0518 is motivated more by personal grievance against Hemiauchenia rather than any aim to respect the median academic perspective. NGPezz (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@NGPezz To be fair to Chanchu0518 (who appears to not be a native English speaker given somewhat confusing comments like this), I think what he meant is "In Sobral et al. 2015, Weigeltisauridae is located within Sauria". I still think this is a misleading summary of the source though. Chanchu0518 has always proposed to add Weigeltisauridae with a question mark to the taxobox (e.g. [13]), not that Weigeltisauridae should be included in the taxobox outright without a question mark, which would of course be unreasonable.

I think including taxa with "?" in the taxobox should be reserved for taxa where there is a serious dispute about their placement (e.g. drepanosauromorphs as non-saurian diapsids or as archosauromorphs, or silesaurids as dinosauromorphs or stem-ornithischians), with this disputed position having been supported by at least a considerable minority of recent studies, rather than placements supported by only one or a small handful of tangential phylogenetic results that may be a decade old at this point, otherwise taxoboxes would end up getting bloated with these occasional outliers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for List of organisms of Place

I monitor a bunch of lists ranging from List of Lepidoptera of Albania to List of reptiles of the Recherche Archipelago. They are mostly quiet, but conflict comes up in five areas:

• Should the list include domestic, introduced or feral species?
• Should the list include extinct species and if so, which ones?
• Should the list include subspecies?
• Should the lists of mammals or biodiversity include humans?
• Should genera be abbreviated?

These ideas would apply to flora, flora, funga, etc.

Usually the consensus has been to include:

• Animals that are part of a self-sustaining wild population even if those animals are introduced, reintroduced or feral.
• Animals which were present in 1500 including species which became extinct locally after 1500. This is a relatively easy line to draw, but not always most helpful.
• Subspecies are often included, but usage is very mixed. There are more edit wars on this topic than any other.
• Some lists include humans under Primates because they are present, others exclude them because they don't think they are wild or they don't think they are animals.

I've come up with a model sentence below to add to such articles, but I'm open to suggestions.

This list includes all wild Lepidoptera species of Albania which maintain a self-sustaining population and which are extant or became locally extinct after 1500.

Of course the appropriate clade would be substituted for Lepidoptera and whatever place substituted for Albania. This would not include subspecies (it says species), humans or domesticated species (it says wild, but I'm still not sure if humans are wild).

Where else should this be advertised? SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I've added notices about this discussion to the following WikiProject talk pages: Amphibians and Reptiles, Animals, Bats, Birds, Fishes, Lepidoptera, Fungi, Mammals, Monotremes and Marsupials, Plants, and finally Lists. I mostly work with fauna, so I may be missing places which should be notified. Please either do so or let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

My own opinion after working on a few of these articles:

• Domestic species such as cats and cows shouldn't be included, period; introduced and feral species should be, but should be in a separated section or clearly marked with an asterisk. (As an example, most Canadian earthworms are actually introduced, and it would be absurd to not include them.)
• I agree that 1500 is a somewhat arbitrary line, but we need to draw that arbitrary line somewhere.
• If only one subspecies of several of one species is found in the place, and the subspecies is endemic, it should be named and not the species. I think if multiple subspecies are present, there is no need to list them
• Humans could be included on a technicality, but I hardly think any reader would expect them, and it's splitting hairs to include it.
• Genera can be abbreviated after the first use, as in any other article.

Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should be utilizing the existence of sections to their full potential. Make one section for domestic native (perhaps make a subsection for endemic) species, one for introduced species (with a subsection for invasive species), and one for extinct and fossil species. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm wary of including domestic animals on such lists, as they are usually implicitly about wildlife. Perhaps we need to determine a guideline on whether domestics should be included? In my experience they usually aren't: List of mammals of New Zealand does not include the sheep, for example. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 00:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I was understanding "domestic" in the sense of "from that habitat". I would not add domestic as in domesticated animals. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clearer, this is the sectioning I propose for "List of flora/fauna of place":

• Native species
  • Endemic species
• Introduced species
  • Invasive species
• Extinct species
  • Recently extinct (after 1500)
  • Fossil species (i.e., fossils found in that place)

Evidently, the extinct section would require further sources since they are not usually covered by the checklists. But I do not see this as an issue. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that splitting Native species, Endemic species, Introduced species, Invasive species and Recently extinct species into separate sections is the most useful approach. Having read a lot of studies documenting the "Flora of Place_X" the most common and most useful approach seems to be to list all species (including extirpated and recently extinct, if known) in the same list, organized by phylum, class, order and family. Species are assumed to be native, unless marked as introduced. Other markers for species endemic to a country or smaller region are helpful. A marker for invasive species could be useful, but there's a serious concern about finding WP:RS for such a statement. If the place has an authority that specifically designates invasive species, that would seem appropriate.

I would place fossil species in a separate list. In almost all cases, the fossils found in a place are almost unrelated to the present-day flora and fauna, due to plate tectonics and the vast timescales involved.

Lastly, I would tend towards naming all infrataxa present, but I think this is likely to differ between botanists and zoologists.Rupert Clayton (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

In the few I've worked on alongside the more general Wildlife of X prose articles, I can't recall a source including humans or domestic animals. Most also do not include extinct animals, caveated with some including the recently extinct/probably extinct but unconfirmed. They definitely have not gone back to 1500. I've seen subspecies or unclear taxonomy mentioned, in such cases it seems simple to resolve this with notes. Introduced species are a bit more complex, sources treat them differently, I would lean towards inclusion but distinguishing in some manner. CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding extinct species is usually difficult from a sourcing perspective, because checklist papers that form the backbone of these lists exclude them for obvious reasons. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 13:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

However, you do get sources discussing extinct species exclusively, so they may work on separate pages like List of Australia-New Guinea species extinct in the Holocene. CMD (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why they should be separate pages. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Because they're different topics that sources often treat differently. CMD (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Then should extinct arthropods be excluded from the Arthropod page, since they are different topics that sources often treat differently? — Snoteleks (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, I have not reviewed general sources about Arthropods. I would be very surprised if sources on taxonomic subjects follow the exact same conventions as sources on today's wildlife though. CMD (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed sources on arthropods, and I guarantee that the sources that talk about extinct taxa are completely different from the sources that talk about live diversity. In fact, that's the pattern for all groups of life. Please, if you can, explain why they should be separate, or elaborate on why it matters that they do not follow the "exact same conventions". — Snoteleks (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

It matters if sources do not follow the same conventions as our writing broadly follows what reliable sources write. I don't fully understand the question of why two separate topics should be separate. CMD (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore, extinct species have been found in country x and the present wildlife in country x are of interest to quite different reader groups. The latter will be far more popular, and a reader looking for the former will probably be doing research only on the former and be quite disinterested in present wildlife. Shoehorning extinct species into the lists makes them needlessly longer and more difficult to write and maintain. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I see your points. I especially agree that it would make them more difficult to write and maintain. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that in general we should be guided by the IUCN Red List accounts. YES for inclusion of wild and native species; of subspecies only if valid and range clearly defined; and of regionally or nationally extinct ones only if after 1500. NO for domestic species including feral ones, and for humans, which are also domestic :):). Re introduced ones: YES for those that have been introduced so long ago that they have been reproducing in the wild for at least 3 generations and form self-sustaining populations, but with a WP:RS. NO if a few individuals crossed an int'l border, were caught and taken to a zoo or fenced wildlife park. BhagyaMani (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This pretty much seems like a good approach. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Exclude humans and domesticated species. I agree that readers don't really expect this and including these species doesn't conform with the commonly understood meaning of "List of mammals in Place" (or similar). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Summary of consensus?

@Cremastra, Snoteleks, Rupert Clayton, Chipmunkdavis, BhagyaMani, and Myceteae:

Domesticated species are not expected in such lists and should not be included, though they could have a place in separate lists or could be included if marked as such.

The lists that exist in Wikipedia now, in the "List of clade of Place" series, do not generally include include long-extinct species, but only those recently extinct or extirpated from a place (since 1500). I see support for that. Separate lists of extinct species generally cover geographical areas rather than follow political lines.

Sometimes subspecies (infrataxa) are important but usually they are not. I don't think we can make a general rule about that. Any edits which add or remove them should follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle as needed.

The consensus is to not include humans. I disagree philosophically, but that is what most people expect.

Usually all species in a clade are listed in taxonomic order. Species that are endemic, introduced, feral, invasive, locally extinct (since 1500) are usually marked as such in the list, but that is not now consistent.

If you disagree about my summary, let me know, but let's not re-argue the points if we can avoid it.

Next steps?

If the consensus above were established as a guideline, it would not result in major changes to existing lists, but it would make it easier to explain why some edits are not appropriate.

Should we create formal guidance for such lists? Where should that go? How do we make such guidance clear to editors?

Any other ideas? Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I agree with the consensus that domestic animals and humans should not be included, since the lists are implicitly about wildlife.

I also agree with the consensus that long-extinct species should not be included. 1500 CE is the cutoff used by the IUCN, so we can run with that. Personally I think that definition runs into serious friction in a few isolated cases, like Hawaii and New Zealand, when numerous species became extinct relatively shortly (a couple centuries or decades) before 1500.

I agree that species should be listed in taxonomic order, with major sections being taxa like "mammals" or "birds" and not categories like "endemic" or "introduced."

I agree that species that are endemic, introduced, feral, or locally extinct (since 1500) should be marked as such.

Next Steps

• I believe that organisms from a single defined geographic area - animals, plants, and fungi - should be treated in a single list. This may required mass merges in several cases. I hope this prevents certain overlooked groups (like reptiles or plants) from being passed over in favor of dedicated lists about mammals or birds.
• I believe that there should be greater clarity about what geographic areas should be included. See below:
  • Should geographic areas be defined primarily geographically/biogeographically, or primarily politically?
  • How small of a geographic level should we go down to? Continents? Countries? States/provinces? Or maybe the geographic area we focus on should be determined by its biodiversity, not sheer size? If you look at the talk page for List of European species extinct in the Holocene, I previously took some fire for merging a bunch of articles into this single, previously existing article (including merging niche articles focusing on topics like British plants, Manx animals, or Catalonian animals). At the same time, I thought it was proper to separate off the Macaronesian islands and Madagascar into their own, new lists separate from Africa because of their distinct insular biography.
  • Is it OK to have articles that overlap in scope (e.g., New York state vs. United States)?
• We should adapt the consensus for Lists of extinct species by region.
  • I think all of the existing points still apply, except for the 1500 CE cutoff. However, we still need to define some cutoff. In particular, should our articles be primarily about the Quaternary extinction (Late Pleistocene to present) or Holocene extinction (mid to late Holocene, to present)?
  • Although all of these articles say "Holocene" in their title, in part because of edits I made a few years back, in reality several of these articles include numerous species from the Pleistocene-Holocene boundary. In effect, this means that some but not all of the Pleistocene megafauna appear on the lists.
  • I support an all-or-nothing approach to the Pleistocene megafauna. Either we put the cutoff early enough to include all of them, or late enough to include none of them, but an Pleistocene-Holocene boundary cutoff while the extinction was still ongoing is not ideal. Personally I favor the "nothing" side of the debate, but I would still prefer "all" over these weird middle ground we have today. Columbianmammoth (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Some of the considerations seem beyond the scope of the current discussion. We didn't really discuss whether clades should be lumped or split or which level of geographic organization should be used. If these are live issues, it may warrant a separate discussion. I think these are largely matters of editorial discretion within the bounds of typical considerations and P&G, such as list size. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

This looks to me like an accurate summary of consensus. I'm not sure that there were enough participants here to publish this as a guideline. I suspect there are more editors who contribute to these various lists than there were participants here. To be clear, I would support this as the basis for a guideline. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nudibranch § Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida, and the need to update nudibranch taxonomy

Hello, I recently created a discussion in Talk:Nudibranch on 1) the recent restriction of order Nudibranchia and the reinstitution of Doridida as an order, and 2) the need to update nudibranch taxonomy, and would like to have some imput on how we should proceed. Thank you.

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nudibranch § Division into Nudibranchia sensu strictu and Doridida, and the need to update nudibranch taxonomy. Sclerotized (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings, and apologies!

Hello,

I'm a relatively new Wikipedian, and had recently been linking existing greek/latin roots of taxonomies to their corresponding wiktionary articles.

I've now learned from helpful folks at the WikiProject Biology [where I first commented] that this is considered original research, a taboo at wikipedia! I don't want to run afoul of the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and i certainly don't want to annoy other folks who find taxonomy interesting

So, having now read many past discussions here, the essay from YummiFruitBat -- I better understand why it is inadvisable to do what I had been doing, and I'm sorry for having done so -- I see some of the changes I made have already been reverted, and in the future if I have an etymology to add, I'll track down the namer's statement on the origin of the name, if it's available. Ngenthatcould (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ngenthatcould, first, it would really be preferable to add a new section for etymology rather than putting it in the lead, since the point of the lead is to "identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" per MOS:LEAD. Since we agree that a citation is needed to establish a genuine etymology for scientific taxon names, having etymologies only in the lead also conflicts with the guidance against using citations in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE) in most cases since the content should exist in the body with a proper citation. If in the rare cases where the etymology is legitimately a significant factor of the taxon's notability, then it would make sense to briefly summarize the etymology section in the lead. Lastly, I would recommend switching the order of operations, i.e., track down the reliable source stating the etymology before having an etymology to add (in other words, do the research before coming up with content). MossOnALog^Talk 20:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal needing input

There is a new merge proposal on Talk:Ctenobethylus that needs input from editors.--Kevmin § 01:00, 14 February 2026 (UTC)