Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

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 (, , ), 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)

Update klaxon: I have finally got round to finishing this off and have retagged it and moved it to project space. Now live at Wikipedia:Biological etymology or WP:ETYBIO. I've never published an essay before so I've doubtless messed something up. Feedback / corrections welcome. YFB ¿ 21:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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 , 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 . 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. , . 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 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 () or decade-old () 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. ), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Quick straw poll on fossil species Replying should only take a few seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

The authority for the order comprising the elephant birds, Aepyornithiformes, is widely given as Newton 1884, citing an article he wrote for the 9th edition of the encyclopaedia Britannica, where he used the form "Aepyornithes". Britannica article 1963 work giving the 1884 Britannica article as authority for Aepyornithiformes. However, it turns out that Newton had used the name "Aepyornithes" earlier, in the 1877 publication "The nomenclature of the groups of Ratitae". in The Annals and magazine of natural history 4 (20), 1877, pp. 499–500 . Is the correct authority therefore actually Newton 1877? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

If using the name Aepyornithes is sufficient to be the authority, then 1877 seems correct. That paper is specifically about names, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. In the 1877 paper, Newton says the names are not new (except for one), which hints that there could be an earlier use, although perhaps he just means the family name exists.

However, we need a source for this, as "(Newton, 1884) is widely used. Why the parenthesis? Is this to indicate the different spelling?  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the brackets are to note the emendation from Aepyornithes (originally Æpyornithes in Newton 1877) to Aepyornithiformes. Max Fürbringer's 1888 work, Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vögel seems to have been the first work, or at least among the first, to use "Aepyornithiformes". Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Aepyornithiformes was used in (Fürbringer, 1878).

I'm not au fait with the ICZN, but I'm not seeing any reason to exclude any of these publications. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, looks like Aepyornithiformes was in use considerably earlier than I thought. @Dyanega: for his view on what the correct authority is here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy this is actually incorrect. The Google book is confusing, because it looks like a single work, but if you actually closely inspect it it's actually a compilation of several works by Furbringer written several decades apart, so I understand why you were mistaken. The section of google books document that mentions Aepyornithiformes is not from 1877, but is part of the 1902 work "Zur vergleichenden Anatomie des Brustschulterapparates und der Schultermuskeln" [On the comparative anatomy of the thoracic-shoulder apparatus and the shoulder muscles] (which starts at p. 287 of the google books doc), rather than the 1878 work "Zur vergleichenden anatomie und entwicklungsgeschichte der excretionsorgane der vertebraten" [On the comparative anatomy and developmental history of the excretory organs of vertebrates], which is the work at the start of the Google doc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments, but I find it suspicious that my online searches have failed to uncover a single use of "Aepyornithiformes (Newton, 1877)", "Aepyornithes Newton, 1877", or minor variants on these. With all due respect to Hemiauchenia's research, it seems slightly more likely that we're missing some wrinkle rather than that a 100 years of scholarship have overlooked an error. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:22, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The scholarly literature was far harder to search pre-internet, and it's genuinely possible it got missed and people just kept copying the authority without looking deeper, see for example the fact that the authority of Trogontherium cuvieri was missed for 200 years . I should credit Dagdamor for noting the initial discrepancy in the German Wikipedia elephant bird article, as that's how I found out about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The ICZN rules do not govern names above the rank of superfamily. Not authorship, not dates, not priority - it's complete chaos. This is like visiting an in-law's house and seeing a bunch of kids fighting and you sit back, smile, and know that none of that mess is your responsibility. Sorry. Dyanega (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Dyanega is entirely correct (unfortunately) which means we are likely to end up going against convention to be correct. Aepyornithiformes Furbringer 1878 should be the correct attribution for Aepyornithiformes until/if some earlier mention is found. The mention does not have to include *anything* beyond the same spelling and use as a "group" (even monotaxic) to be an acceptable attribution. Aepyornithes Newton 1877 is similarly the correct attribution for that name until/if some earlier mention is found, and there is no correlation between the attribution of Aepyornithiformes and Aepyornithes as coordination does not exist at these levels of rank/clade. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Should this be changed on Wikispecies as well? @Monster Iestyn for their input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Beats me. Owing to ICZN not governing these issues at all, there's no consistency whatsoever as to what authorities higher-ranked names should use. If a name was originally vernacular or otherwise had its spelling emended (as here), some authors choose the authority of the original name, some use the authority of the first time that particular spelling was used (the example I'm thinking of for the latter is Arthropoda). In practice though I suspect a lot of people just copy the authorities that others before them have used and never really question them, leading to confusion today.

As it happens I just learned the other day for instance that Arachnida's authority is another of these can of worms: it's been given as "Cuvier, 1812" (complete fiction from a Zootaxa paper afaik), Lamarck, 1801 (who spelled it "arachnides" in French vernacular), Cuvier, 1798 (ditto but "arachnéides"), and the first time the spelling "Arachnida" appears that I know of (so far) is actually MacLeay, 1821, but nobody has ever used that authority. (I went for "Cuvier, 1798" on Wikispecies (species:Arachnida) but quite frankly I'm not really that happy)

Anyway, I would like to think it's best to use whatever most authors consider the authority of Aepyornithiformes to be, but I don't know beyond that? Up to you really if it should be changed on Wikispecies. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Based on Hemuauchenia's correction of my misinterpretation, it would be Fürbringer, 1888 (not 1878), unless you treat Aepyornithes and Aepyornithiformes as equivalent, in which case Newton, 1877. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If we're following the interpretation that the brackets in the current author citation are because of the spelling emendation, Newton 1877 would be correct rather than Fürbringer. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The comment above "there is no correlation between the attribution of Aepyornithiformes and Aepyornithes as coordination does not exist at these levels of rank/clade" is probably the most telling and crucial, and I should have emphasized it; it is perhaps the most distinctive and non-intuitive feature of how the Code treats names over historical time. The author of a genus first published as a vernacular does, under the Code, sometimes get credited with the non-vernacular form, and also two (or more) names with the same prefix but differently-ranked suffixes are considered coordinated and given the same authorship even if the author only published one of them. Since these principles don't apply to higher-rank names, acting as if those principles DO apply is more likely to get you in trouble than just being strict and literalist. Taking off my Commissioner hat for the moment, then, I'd advocate giving attributions and dates only for exact spellings, not variants. For example, in the example above about Arachnida, I would (assuming the research is accurate) only give MacLeay, 1821 as the author and date, and ignore the others that pre-date it, because the spellings they used are not presently still in use. Dyanega (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Whatever we may feel is the correct authority, we can't use it unless we have a reliable source. Everything I've found is Aepyornithiformes Newton, 1884 or Aepyornithiformes (Newton, 1884). I can find nothing for Aepyornithiformes Newton, 1877 or Aepyornithiformes Fürbringer, 1888.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something that would be worth a brief paper in a taxonomic journal, similar to the one on the authority of Megalonyx ? As I admitted earlier, I was not the first to notice the discrepancy around the authority, so I would have no issue with anyone writing a paper clarifying the nomenclature surrounding the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've asked the question on Bird Forum, which hasn't received much interest so far. Their taxonomic discussions sometimes lead to short articles clarifying nomenclatural issues, although these usually revolve around ICZN rules (e.g. on appropriate family names).  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been slowly improving the Protist article for quite some time, and recently I expanded the diversity section to cover briefly all protist groups, with mentions of their species richness, lifestyle, habitat diversity, and main distinguishable traits. However, I think ideally it should be even more brief.

I have been considering turning it into a table, much like the diversity table at the Animal article. I have a draft here, still a work in progress, but I would like to know the opinion of other editors about whether the style itself is/looks better or worse than the existing prose at Protist. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

P.S. If possible I would like others' opinions on specific details. Size of images? Should images be included? Are the descriptions too long, and are simpler statements divided in columns (such as nutritional mode, parasitism, etc.) as in the Animal table preferable? Should all of these groups be included, or only the ones above 100 species or more? Does it make sense to have a table this long, or is it better kept as prose? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The style is fine. Include images. I don't think additional columns are needed. Neutral on cutting off low diversity groups. In the existing protist article, the pair of pie charts seems pretty awful to me. I get why, in the context of protists, a more precise term than "plants" is useful, but I don't understand why it is streptophytes in the first chart and archaeplastida in the second chart. The caption should at least mention that streptophytes are plants and metazoans are animals. Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thanks for the input, I would also like your opinion on the short version which may be more suitable for the article. Also, good eye, I never noticed those mistakes in the pie chart figure! I might just create an accurate version using the data from the original paper. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the long version. The "major protist groups" columns includes a lot of things I'd at least heard of as an undergraduate (although I didn't learn anything detailed about any non-photosynthetic groups). The short version has few clades I'd heard of (granted, some of them hadn't been identified as clades when I was an undergraduate). Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Even considering the descriptions on the short version? I tried to outline the most commonly known groups — Snoteleks (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

The statement that red algae lack chlorophyll seems to be false. It may be that they lack chlorophyll b. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I like the table, but it might be excessive for the main protista article. Not sure where else it could go.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:53, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jts1882 After much pondering about this, I have created a short version which may be more ideal for the main article. What do you think? — Snoteleks (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the shorter version is better for the main article. The long version is too overwhelming and the diversity gets lost in the detail. There must be somewhere where the longer version could go, possibly some list article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:05, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Create a "diversity of protists" article? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps at Protist classification? — Snoteleks (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I was just going through some of the species described in year categories recategorizing some of those that needed recategorizing (e.g. placing plant species placed in the main cat into the plant subcat etc.) and I came across this category, its the only Arachnid described in year category and spiders described in year would be considered a subcat of this, so should we create a new cat link tree on Template:Category described in year so that the spider subcat appears in this cat and create once for other years as well for consistency or just move all the pages to the animal category and delete this? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And if we do create it I have another idea for a cat tree: "Arthropods described in year" with arachnids, crustaceans and insects as subcats of this. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not the only Arachnid described in year category; there are 21, see subsubcategories of Category:Arachnids_by_century_of_formal_description. Plantdrew (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I confused myself, its the only 21st Century one and there was not 20th Century ones. Either way, something needs to be done to either make spiders a subcat of it or it being deleted completely. Also Arthropods described in year exists for 4 years, so something needs to be done so Arachnids/Spiders, Crustaceans and Insects are subcats of those as well. I am not a template/module editor. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll look into recategorizing. Templates and modules shouldn't be needed. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

The reason I brought up templates is because most of these use the {{Category described in year}} template to auto generate the categories. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, thanks. That's fine. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:02, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porphyrio claytongreenei, I think that we should probably draft something to clarify what sources are useable for taxonomy-based Wikipedia pages in the vein of WP:MEDRS (though I think we can all agree that their policy for sources is untenable for the writing we do).

What are your thoughts? African Mud Turtle (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. That AfD seems to have nothing to do with concerns about whether the source provided is reliable - the source in question was authored by subject matter experts, published in a peer-reviewed journal itself published by a reputable scientific publisher on the behalf of a scientific association, and by WP:RS standards it can broadly be considered reliable. The nominator didn't start the discussion because the source was unreliable, but because it was the only source on the topic. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue stated was that the only source was a primary source, and thus insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia policies. Seeing as there is an understanding within WP:TOL that new taxa which necessarily only have a single relevant source (their description papers) are unproblematic subjects for articles, the suggestion is to enshrine this somewhere to avoid issues at AfD. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there an understanding here that articles with only a single source are unproblematic? I certainly don't believe that, and I don't believe the wider editing community would share this view either. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

It is accepted that any new taxon named is worthy of an article on Wikipedia (at the species level for neontology, broadly at the genus level for palaeontology). If we agree that any newly named taxon is instantly notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, then necessarily we must allow articles based on singular sources. Because the taxa are new, no other source exists at time of article creation, and sometimes none ever will. Either you think that it's okay for Porphyrio claytongreenei to be a topic supported only by a single primary source, or you don't think it's worthy of having an article. It cannot be both. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:20, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking accepted by who? I don't accept this, and I don't think the average editor with a baseline understanding of WP:V and WP:N would accept it either. Are you referring to some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, or to WP:NSPECIES? The latter certainly does not state that any newly named taxon is instantly notable for the purposes of Wikipedia, it states that all extant species that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists are presumed notable (emphasis mine). Nothing is "instantly notable". I find it hard to believe this is the local consensus of this WikiProject either, given that the guidelines of several TOL subprojects like WP:MAMMALS explicitly discourage the creation of articles on newly published taxa before they receive recognition from other reputable sources. You're certainly entitled to your view, but I do not think it is nearly as widespread as you think it is, even among biology editors. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly the understanding we have at WP:PALEO. There is no such thing like those official bodies of taxonomists for most fossil groups, after all. Ask absolutely any editor from that WikiProject and they'll tell you that's how it is done with fossil organisms. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:47, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? There certainly are paleonological associations, and there are paleontological databases. There may not be an authoritative international list of accepted taxa such as AviList, but that's the case for most groups. The fact that palaeontology works slowly is not a very convincing reason to set aside the absolute bare minimum expectation that a notable topic have literally any mention in any other scientific source besides the one that described it before creating a Wikipedia article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That belief is only held by people who are misapplying the guideline. {{one source}}—the tag in question—refers only to an essay which applies the problem of a single source to "potential" problems about notability etc. which are unlikely to apply to taxonomy articles. Most editors adding the tag to taxon articles haven't looked at the essay. Similar is the misapplication of the (in any case overzealous) prohibition on relying only on primary sources. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The WP:GNG says "sources" in the plural, and editors interpret that as requiring "multiple sources". And then they assume this applies to non-GNG subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ethmostigmus The understanding is based on 20+ years of AFD history in which (per the documentation presented during the NSPECIES discussions last year, essentially no species article was successfully deleted. Time and again species have been upheld as notable with only a small subset of non-taxonomy rules lawyers attempting to place a peer-reviewed new taxon article as not acceptable. There is a flex in how guidelines are applied here, just as there is for topics such as N:PROF, BLP, and MEDRS. You would not apply NPROF standards to MEDRS situations and you do not apply MEDRS to anything NOT medical.--Kevmin § 04:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not interested in litigating a closed AfD, I'm just trying to figure out what African Mud Turtle is proposing/requesting here. I don't think anyone really thinks that this is a topic area that requires extra guidelines on reliable sources, and the nominator of the AfD seemed to be concerned with notability/the existence of only a single source, not the quality of that source, so I don't see the relevance of WP:MEDRS? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone involved in drafting NSPECIES:

1. I agree with the interpretation advanced by Ethmostigmus that taxa with legitimate, validly published names in botany (and whatever the equivalent terminology is in zoology) are not automatically notable by reason of being so published. We need some kind of indication that other taxonomists agree that the taxon is real, and not the work of a lone crank.
2. The phrase "accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists" is vague, for very good reason. Different branches of taxonomy have widely differing levels of centralization and we should account for that. I am open to the idea that "acceptance" can be shown in fairly subtle, implicit ways. "This taxon was described in a peer-reviewed journal that has a high reputation in the field, so taxonomists in that field accept it" is an argument to which I am open, but others may be more skeptical. But yes, I, at least, did not intend that phrase only to mean "there is one Official Set of Names to which we all render due obeisance".
3. Monography is slow in most branches of taxonomy (not just palaeontology). If most relevant taxonomists accept that a taxon is probably distinct, I do not think we do our readers a service by waiting a century for a monograph to be written including the taxon. Therefore we should endeavor to discover the beliefs of taxonomists, which may be expressed subtly and implicitly.
4. I think it is dangerous to argue strictly based on AfD precedents; witness NSPORTS. I do think the modal editor feels that individual species are "worth writing about" regardless of rules-lawyering, but if our guidance is being used to defend immense numbers of stubs that no one seems to be able to expand, we will be in peril.
5. I am not sure it is productive to try to forge source guidance at this (Tree of Life) level, because of the variability of taxonomy in practice. I think it is better to address the specific pain points from the recent AfD (fossil taxa, and fossil members of extant taxa) and tweak NSPECIES as necessary. The lessons from this might not hold up as well in, say, botany. Choess (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe an example would help. Imagine that the best source about a species is this:

• Eigenmann, CH (1917). "New and rare species of South American Siluridae in the Carnegie Museum." Annals of Carnegie Museum. 11:398–404. Original description.

If one were to take the MEDRS definition of "primary source", this is a primary source. (If one takes a different approach, this might be "primary literature", but the true primary source is his field notebooks, not his publications.)

If one were to take the GNG approach, then secondary sources are required.

Ergo: Off to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, right?

But NSPECIES doesn't work this way. So the question is: Should we have something written down to warn the unwary GNG-focused, MEDRS-aware would-be deletionist that this is not going to be a good candidate for deletion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That is helpful, thank you, I think I understand now (though do correct me if I'm still off the mark!)
If by "best source" you mean the most detailed and comprehensive treatment of a topic that is the most useful when writing the bulk of a Wikipedia article, I don't think there is any inherent cause for concern in using a "primary source" (per MEDRS logic) like an original description when there is at least a minimum amount of evidence that said description is a reliable source that is accepted by others in the field. I myself rely substantially on such sources when writing on poorly known taxa eg. Archivea. I think it's problematic if this "primary source" is the only source that has ever mentioned the topic, but not because it's a "primary source", if you get what I mean.
As to whether I think we need to write something down to make it clear that not every topic needs to be sourced to the stringent guidelines of MEDRS: eh, not really. Unsuccessful AfD attempts will continue to be launched no matter what guidelines apply and what advice is available. It's not like this is a big issue where floods of pitchfork-wielding deletionists are going around getting rid of swathes of articles on the basis of "primary sources bad" - after all, the AfD mentioned ended in a keep with no significant opposition besides the nominator. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:26, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Surely the key guideline for articles about taxa at any level is their acceptance (or in a few cases historical acceptance) by reputable taxonomic databases, since these (a) are secondary sources (b) rely on the existence of one or more primary sources. Once the acceptance of a taxon is sourced, primary sources are fine for descriptions, etc. We shouldn't anticipate wider acceptance by creating articles based solely on the original publication. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Databases are NOT reliable sources by default. They are a non-peer-reviewed compilation of primary source statements, curated every so often by a handful of individuals, and as such very often outdated. Wider acceptance preferably means referencing by other peer-reviewed works, which are the ideal secondary sources. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not true, @Snoteleks. Some databases are reliable; others aren't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Hence why I said "by default" — Snoteleks (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't even think it's "by default". That would be like saying "By default, videos are unreliable". The only way the format of a source affects WP:RS status is if the source isn't Published in a fixed, accessible format (e.g., the "source" is verbal statements that nobody recorded). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant is that they're not necessarily reliable in terms of the standards we have for scientific sources, not just general WP:RS — Snoteleks (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No format is necessarily reliable; that's as true for journals as it is for databases. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man is a database that meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) standards; the European Journal of Preventive Medicine is a medical journal that does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I see your points and I agree. I'm just weary of people assuming that any taxonomic database is good enough to create new articles, especially after the automated AlgaeBase stub articles from years ago that then had to be mass deleted. I would like it if we included in our guidelines some kind of statement or curated list of databases and journals that we regard as reliables. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I would love such a list, but think it would be best on an information page at a relevant WikiProject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

So depending on the project you mean? One for WP:ANIMALS, another for WP:PLANTS, etc.? If so, I agree. — Snoteleks (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows:

1. All eukaryotic species are (or should be) assumed notable at first. However,
2. This does not imply that all eukaryotic species need an article, as this depends on how reliably sourced it can be (notice how I'm not saying "how reliably sourced it is"). However,
3. Just because an article is poorly written or sourced, it does not imply the species should not be covered. It only means that the article is a stub and needs to be improved. See comment below.
4. In biological taxonomy, primary (scientific, peer-reviewed) sources are reliable when secondary sources are absent.
5. Online databases can be a good access to superficial knowledge for editors to get started on a taxonomic subject, but they are not necessarily peer-reviewed, can often be unreliable or obsolete depending on the group, are usually curated only by a handful of people, and as such are subject to the same issues as Wikipedia itself. They should not be 100% relied upon for reliability and sourcing.

Comment: I think every time a discussion like this shows up, everyone forgets that the quality of articles =/= the quality of what the articles are about. A poorly written article does not mean the species deserves to be deleted from Wikipedia. People need to stop looking at deletion as the default escape route, and start encouraging better sourcing and writing. I have yet to see an example where a species article cannot be either expanded upon or (more commonly with fossils) simply merged into its parent genus article. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with any of these points, and would add one clarification to point 4 that the peer-reviewed scientific literature can count as both primary (naming, descriptions, etc) AND secondary (introductions, discussions, etc) for both content and reliability as has been mentioned elsewhere (can't remember where but WP:PRIMARYUSE among others covers it). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

You might be thinking of WP:PRIMARYINPART. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Here are some statements from various guidelines including the two just mentioned:

• WP:PSTS says "A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one"
• WP:PSTS again: "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment".
• WP:PRIMARYINPART says "many high-quality sources contain both primary and secondary material" and "A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)".
• WP:PRIMARYUSE says "In science, data is primary, and the first publication of any idea or experimental result is always a primary source.

The latter could be interpreted as saying that recognition of a species is primary as it's the first publication of the "idea". However, a species determination is not based solely on the description of the specimens and other results in the paper. Recognition of a new species takes into account works on other species and how they compare. WP:PRIMARYUSE#Characteristics of a secondary source says:

• "A secondary source usually provides analysis, commentary, evaluation, context, and interpretation. It is this act of going beyond simple description, and telling us the meaning behind the simple facts, that makes them valuable to Wikipedia."
• "Reputable secondary sources are usually based on more than one primary source. High-quality secondary sources often synthesize multiple primary sources ..."

My interpretation is that the determination of whether the specimens being studied belong to a separate species or are part of another species is based on further analysis, evaluation, context, and interpretation. The comparative analysis of the data in the paper (its primary source material) with that in other primary sources, makes the discussion leading to the decision on whether it is a species a secondary source. More conservatively it is a mix of primary (proposal that it might be a new species) and secondary (determination that it is).

In short, I think the guidelines support what IJReid said about peer-reviewed scientific literature counting as both primary (naming, descriptions, etc) and secondary (introductions, discussions, etc) sources. It's the discussion of the data and comparison to other sources that leads to the concludion on species status.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:59, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also:

• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Biomedical journals: "In addition to experiments, primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Biomedical is a very different branch of science where oversimplification can have significant negative consequences. All sources that would be of relevance here are from non-biomedical journals (even if the journals sometimes include biomedical topics) so I do not think this applies. Textbooks on taxonomy simply do not exist in the same scope, and review articles are often incredibly difficult to publish so as to nearly not exist. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I think it's significant that MEDRS agrees that a source we would call 'primary' may also have a section that contains secondary source material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the story is with the BHL? After about a year of mild panic over the Smithsonian thing, it hasn't been loading for me for the past week or so. biodiversitylibary.org used to give me "server not found" but now it's fielding a cloudfare error code 520. Have other people been able to access it? Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

To editor Cremastra: try this link: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org – I'm not sure why you are having a problem reaching their site, but if that link does work for you, then it might be because "library" was misspelled. When I click on that link, I go straight to the BHL website. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Huh, my "libary" in the comment above was definitely a comment-only typo—I was trying to get to the URL you link to. But the cloudfare check worked this time. So I guess you fixed it! :) Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The only thing I did was correct the spelling. It's more likely that BHL corrected the connection problem. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 02:45, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I know, I was joking. Hopefully they can keep the connection up, since, as I said, I've had troubles throughout February. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This might be helpful: What is happening to BHL’s technical infrastructure?. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 17:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been having issues with BHL loading slowly (or not at all) on and off for several months across various devices and internet connections, though today it seems to be working fine. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Me too. It seems intermittent recently. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes I get an error suggesting a problem with the server (cloudfare error 520 is a generic problem with server response error). I assume, or at least hope, this is associated with a move to new hosting.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Various taxonomy websites have been getting extreme traffic from bots for several months (presumably for AI related purposes). I know it's a problem for Tropicos, and I assume it's why COL and GBIF now have loading screens to confirm that a visitor is a human. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks like these problems have coincided with transition of the hosting infrastrucure from the Smithsonian to the Field Museum. This blog postyesterday announces the Field Museum as the new host. Earlier announcements seemed vague on where it was going.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:51, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I took the vagueness as a lack of actual plan, which did make we pretty worried about the library's future. Thank god they found someone. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Could well be. There was also a reluctance to explain why the Smithsonian could not longer host, which seems a strange decision for one of the world's foremost museums.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cryptomonad § Requested move 1 March 2026. Jako96 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

It has bugged me for some time that this obviously notable subject was relegated to an unsatisfactory redirect to type (biology), which perfunctorily summarizes the topic in a single sentence. Now rectified (but still lots of links need to get repointed). Esculenta (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll see if I can fix a bunch of links with JWB, but if my quick search of some 2000 links needing to be corrected in some way is true, it may be easier to request a bot. Great article, by the way! Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It warrants a Did You Know nomination. Ideas for a hook? --Aranae (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the page! I have been updating wikilinks in pages I've made in the past — Snoteleks (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the correct classification of Parakaryon is? I am skeptical of the describers claim that it represents a domain of life of its own distinct from both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, but I'm not finding much literature discussing it other than papers authored by the same people who described it initially. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Incertae sedis on the top level, neither the domain is sure. Petr Karel (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The authors found that similar specimens were actually dead bacteria with smaller bacteria that "associated with the cytoplasm" after the cell walls of the larger individuals were damaged - but they still claim Parakaryon is a new thing containing actual endosymbionts. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

A sub-stub article on has been created (again) and is now nominated for deletion, comments are looked for on the deletion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (3rd nomination)--Kevmin § 17:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I saw that the {{Taxonomy/Incertae_sedis/Eukaryota}} template was, for some reason, written so that the text to be displayed was Animals?, with a link to the Animal article. As far as I know this is very wrong, since none of its children taxa (for example, chitinozoans, Kamera lens, Qingshania) are confirmed as animals, most of them are confirmed protists, and many predate even the proposed molecular origin of animals by several hundred million years.

I changed it to display the words Incertae sedis with a link to the Eukaryote article instead. I am not well versed with incertae sedis templates, so if this is also inadequate, I would appreciate help fixing it. — Snoteleks (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Somebody edited it two days ago to have animal. The link should be incertae sedis, I guess in order to have an explanation to readers of what that means (the code automatically supplies that as the link when creating a new incertae sedis taxonomy template). I'm not sure that there is anybody well versed with incertae sedis templates; I only got to the point of not having to look at an existing example before creating one about a week ago. Before that I couldn't remember whether they should be "Foo\Incertae sedis" or "Incertae sedis/Foo". Plantdrew (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it — Snoteleks (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

An issue that keeps coming up over and over, latest at dinosaur articles such as Tarbosaurus (discussion here:), is when the original binomial combination isn't the same as the current combination, yet we keep the former in the type species field, which seems to spread wide confusion and repeated attempts to "correct" to the current combination, as the original combination is perceived as an error. I think we need a way to clearly show what the intention is, such as an explanatory parenthesis, or as was suggested at the linked talk page, have the current combination in parenthesis. Either way, it can't stay like this, and it would also be more informative to "layreaders" if it was explained better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think mandating original combinations, while making sense for academic taxonomic discussions, adds little value for general readers and often is confusing. I honestly think it might be better to remove the "type species" parameter entirely, but otherwise amending it to clearly state "original combination" or something like that would be a significant improvment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was confused by this a while back, but assumed the editors knew what they were doing, and took steps to address the shortcomings in my understanding this helped flag, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it could serve to change "type species" to "original combination" and then list the type species along with any others below? The Morrison Man (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Basionym would be a good field to add to taxoboxes, though i don't think we should replace the Type Species field with it. I've always felt that adding basionyms and then noting that it is one in the list of synonyms is a makeshift solution to the problem (i've done so a few times myself), so i'd support adding the field to taxobox templates. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said at Tarbosaurus, I think it'd be a good compromise to list the original combination but put the modern combination in parentheses below it. This avoids cutting any information while clarifying things for lay readers and doesn't need to add another field as bloat. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that practice for ICZN and ICNafp names is different, as is the generally used terminology. Wikidata now distinguishes between the properties "has basionym (P566)" for plants and "original combination (P1403)" for animals. Using the original combination for the type species is mandated for ICZN names. This makes it tricky to add new or extra fields to taxoboxes used across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think writing the basionym in the type species parameter is ridiculous or, at the very least, unhelpful for Wikipedia. Name 1 or name 2, the species is the same. Basionyms have no inherent value over their currently accepted name, and only serves to confuse readers. The species article should already have its basionym clarified, no need to extend it to parent taxa articles — Snoteleks (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that Panthera gives its type species as "Felis pardus (= Panthera pardus)" Lavateraguy (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

At the time a species is cited as the type species of a genus, it usually is but might not be cited using its original combination, and likewise it gets messy when the cited name is a junior synonym and not valid. It's important to NOT confuse the originally cited name with an original combination. Honestly, the only way around the confusion this creates without getting absurdly technical is to adopt the "originally cited name plus the present name in parentheses" as suggested above, and make that an explicit documented policy. If there are editors deleting the original cited names then there must be a way to point them to a policy that explains why what they are doing is not the way it should be done, and the correct protocol. Dyanega (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain why deleting the original name over the currently accepted name is incorrect? — Snoteleks (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can. The originally cited name is an immutable parameter, but the presently-recognized name is not immutable. It can even sometimes be incorrect, if based on subjective synonymies that are later disproven. In catalogues, one always cites the name exactly as given in the original designation, for this reason. Dyanega (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

To find an example, I picked up the nearest catalogue to hand just now, and looked for a name where the genus cited for a type species was not the same as the genus for which it is the type, and only had to turn one page to find one: "Thoraxocarphurus Wittmer, 1957a: 351. Type species: Carphurus rhytideres Lea, 1902" - note that the valid name of the type species is presently Brachyhedybius rhytideres (Lea, 1902). Not once in this entire catalogue is anything cited other than the name used in the original designation. And this reminds me of the second correlated reason to do this: if a type species is a junior synonym of another name, there may be OTHER synonyms of that same name, so knowing which one of those synonyms is the one that was chosen as the type is important, especially if the synonymies later turn out to be wrong. Dyanega (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

How should "plus the present name in parentheses" work with taxobox parameter |type_species_authority=? "Felis pardus (= Panthera pardus) Linnaeus, 1758" look kind of screwy, but maybe that's just me. To be honest, I'm not sure why we have |type_species_authority= at all; it does format the authority in smaller text, but takes more characters to type than <small></small> does. However, it is widely used; there were 33,826 automatic taxoboxes with |type_species= at the start of the month, and 29,814 with |type_species_authority= (presumably some of the ~4000 without the authority parameter have the authority included under |type_species=, but from what I've seen, most would just lack an authority altogether). Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I might be weird here, but if I'm being honest I would prefer there was actually more parameters to deal with type species, not less? I am one of those editors who always puts in the original combination (= protonym = basionym etc.) for type species in taxoboxes, but if said type species is a synonym of another name, I try to include the original combination for the current valid species name too for completeness. But in order to do that, I've had to stuff the other name in the |type_species= field, while using HTML linebreaks and small tags to make the end result look nicer, which feels hacky and clunky. (For examples of what I mean here I give you Chrysochus, Diaphorus and Tenuopus, particular note to the last one as the original type species designated was apparently a misidentification, which I also noted there) What I mean by hacky and clunky is that I wish I didn't need so much HTML here for this extra nomenclatural information on the type species, and that the currently valid name for the type species had their own set of name and authority fields if possible. Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution here is two more parameters: a type_species_synonym and type_species_synonym_authority that can be placed in the order these ad hoc taxonboxes are ending up with. The name is just approximate but it could be a way to preserve the usefulness for laypeople, and the accurateness to sources. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I support this. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I've never seen a problem with this or found it confusing, but it seems like that might just be me. I'm of the opinion that the type species should be listed in the taxobox as it was in the description of the genus, regardless of if that name is the valid/accepted name for the taxon or if the species is still placed within the genus This is how type species are presented in most academic works (the ICZN explicitly instructs this, and while the ICN does not instruct this outright as the ICZN does, it is common practice in botany) and I believe we are best off following suit. I think it is better to explain this nuance in the body, along the lines of "[genus] was described in [year] by [author] with ["original" binomial as named in description] as the type species, combining as [combined binomial]". For an example of how I've chosen to handle this in the past, see Sphyrion. I think the fact that some readers are confused by the type species parameter isn't a good reason to break from established convention here, but rather, it is a sign that we need to better explain the evolving nature of nomenclature in our articles. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Ugh. I didn't realize those were separate taxobox fields. That's very bad indeed if the present species name is by a different author. Seems like the entire taxobox template would need a redesign. Dyanega (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that we are likely to need parameter adjustments to accommodate this. As a bit of a most extreme case, what would be the proper "type species" for Pachycephalosaurus? The genus was named with P. grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer 1943 as it's type, but that is now an accepted junior synonym of Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore 1913(?). Would we list P. grangeri as the type of the genus, or T. wyomingensis as the original designation of the accepted senior synonym? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the only way to make everyone happy would be to give P. grangeri as the type, and have P. wyomingensis in parentheses. If someone needs to know what the original combination of wyomingensis was, they can look that up, but the Troodon combination isn't the name cited when Pachycephalosaurus had its type designated. Dyanega (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If the approach of "original_combination/basionym (=accepted_combination)" is to be recommended, then |type_species_authority= should not be used, in my view, because it places the authority in the wrong place or puts the accepted synonym in small font. At Panthera, for example, it should read:

Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (=Panthera pardus)

which can at present only be achieved by wikitext in |type_species=. We could have another field, as suggested above, say |type_species_synonym=, so that the Panthera case could be set up as:

       |type_species = Felis pardus
       |type_species_authority = Linnaeus, 1758
       |type_species_synonym = Panthera pardus

but this doesn't seem to me to offer any real benefit over setting it all up in wikitext (although it would be easier then to use ≡ in place of =, which is arguably more correct.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I was going to suggest giving the current combination first, e.g.

Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) (as Felis pardus)

While this is less pure for taxonomists, having the current name first might be less surprising to a lay-reader. I have no strong preference though. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I can think of another reason to have the current name first, a purely practical one: the current name will vastly more often be an active wikilink to an article. The originally cited name would often need to be a redirect. As a taxonomist, it's important to me that the original cited name be visible, but I'm not going to get picky about the format. That said, the one thing not addressed in either of these template suggestions is what to do when the originally cited name and the presently valid name have different authors. In those cases, we have four fields to contend with, including "type_species_synonym_authority". What's daunting about this is the statistic mentioned before of >33K existing taxoboxes that would suddenly need to be reworked. Dyanega (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as it wasn't worth over-complicating automated taxoboxes to allow for every odd case, where a manual taxobox would work, I think the same applies here: four parameters is over-kill. There's nothing wrong with setting up some type species using wikitext.

I could live with three parameters, which to get "Panthera pardus (Linnaeus, 1758) (as Felis pardus)" might be:

        |type_species = Panthera pardus
        |type_species_authority = (Linnaeus, 1758)
        |original_combination = Felis pardus

Then if the original combination needed a separate authority, this could be handled using wikitext in |original_combination=. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I will add that at least from my recollection not every taxobox will need to be adjusted to accommodate this adjustment, and as long as it is documented somewhere as a guideline/policy it will slowly perturbate its way across all the articles where needed. Just as there are alternative ways to have multiple images displayed (through both a template parameter or another template) there can be multiple ways to include original combinations and their authority, so I don't see a negative in additional parameters, and in fact they would lead to greater consistency in things like small text, wording, and arrangement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer this solution; I tend to use the current combination of the type species as the more useful and easier to understand for lay readers. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Like SilverTiger said, I also prefer this solution since I also use the current combinations — Snoteleks (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd still prefer if "current combination" was the alternate parameter, not the original combination. Saying that Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis is the type species of Pachycephalosaurus is only arguably true at best, but saying Pachycephalosaurus grangeri is the type species and its current combination is P. wyomengesis is objective in nature. Listing things that are not, nomenclaturally, the actual type species as the type species risks original research. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes. If we're dealing with subjective synonyms, the original combination should definitely come first, especially if it's a situation where the current combination actually circumscribed a broader (or narrower) range of variation than the original name did. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm with LLL and Cremastra. We shouldn't be saying things that aren't correct; the type species is what it is. If that species has been renamed since being used as the type, then |current_combination= should be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we should keep in mind that type species are a formality of taxonomic nomenclature in the first place, so if we are to discuss type species at all, we should do so in a nomenclaturally correct way, because type species are a meaningless concept outside of the formalities of taxonomic nomenclature. The type species of Pachycephalosaurus Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943 is the nominal species Pachycephalosaurus grangeri Brown & Schlaikjer, 1943, full stop. The type species of Tarbosaurus Maleev, 1955 is the nominal species Tarbosaurus efremovi Maleev, 1955, full stop. The type species of Panthera Oken, 1816 is the nominal species Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758, full stop. Presenting Panthera pardus as the type species of Panthera, Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis as the type species of Pachycephalosaurus, or Tarbosaurus bataar as the type species of Tarbosaurus is simply incorrect. I agree that parenthetically noting the senior synonym or accepted combination of the type species (e.g. "Felis pardus Linnaeus, 1758 (=Panthera pardus)) might be beneficial for clarity of communication, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer this formatting, and it was how I'd originally done many mammal taxoboxes, when creating them from MSW3. (Oy, how the years have gone by...) That said, I think having the "=" be a link to a note about "original vs current combination" or some such would help. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

So, I just noticed (by virtue of some pages I monitor) that someone is adding these categories to higher (family-rank, from tribes to superfamilies) taxon names that are automatically attributed to a single work and authorship under the ICZN (under the Principle of Coordination). Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought these categories were not supposed to be used for family-rank taxon names for precisely this reason. That is, what benefit is there to having Papilionoidea, Papilionidae, Papilioninae, and Papilionini all listed together under "Category:Taxa described in 1802" and also "Category:Taxa_named_by_Pierre_André_Latreille"? Am I missing something? Dyanega (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The "described in year" category tree has long had a "species described in year" layer with the "taxa described in year" layer added more recently (starting in 2018?). I suspect Category:Animals described in 1758 was the first of these (created 2008-12-31). Category:Plants described in 1753 was created 2009-03-17, with Category:Species described in 1753 being created 4 minutes afterwards. Nothing about the category name "Plants described in 1753" in itself suggests that only species go in the category; it's just implied by having "Species described in 1753" as a parent category.

The addition of the "taxa described in year" layer implies that other ranks can be categorized.

If anybody finds any "described in year" category created prior to 2008-12-31, or any "species described in year" prior to 2009-03-17, I'd like to know about it.

The "taxa named by XXXX" category tree has always (as far as I know) been titled that way, implying that ranks other than species can be categorized. I assume Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus would have been the first of these, and it was created 2015-07-20. 16:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC) Plantdrew (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue that Dyanega raises is what to do when names are automatically authored. I agree that then the categories should not be used. Nominal infraspecies are another example: Panthera pardus pardus (African leopard) was not separately named from Panthera pardus, nor Euphorbia tannensis subsp. tannensis from Euphorbia tannensis, so they should not appear in the categories. (The authorship of 'family-rank' taxon names works differently in the ICNafp. Xanthorrhoeoideae M.W.Chase, Reveal & M.F.Fay was named in 2009 with the explicit basionym Xanthorrhoeaceae Dumort. published in 1829, so both could be categorized if there were separate articles.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)