Talk:Dermophis donaldtrumpi

2134:, I was thinking something similar but I came across a dilemma. The part of the sentence itself that mentions *dermatrophy could be cut out with ..., but I am not sure if that would make sense. Alternatively, if the entire quote is left out it leaves a verified chunk of Bell's reasoning out of the article, which comes off as "sweeping it under the rug". The article already mentions that it does engage that behavior with its young, which Bell acknowledges as a foundation of his gesture alongside burrowing and poor vision. For your option you mentioned considering reliable sources, I don't know what would qualify besides an online medical dictionary I found. Articles I find mentioning the dermophis genus doing such a thing are all about the news itself - and again incorrectly mentioning "dermatrophy" as if it's a real thing as described, which is concerning but unsurprising, and a reason I see that the mistake should be noted. As it stands, there is misinformation spreading. What to do?-- 801: 1725:, oh well, I see then how that may fit...reviewing the etymology part I can view it as less relevant than I initially thought. However, at least the "dermatrophy" part Bell describes is just plain wrong. The closest known term for a creature getting its skin eaten by its young is dermatophagy, which usually describes a human eating his own skin. If we just leave it in - and the rest of his quote is directly relevant and connected to his accusations and reasons for the name - that is very misleading to readers. Surely at least that deserves some kind of mention? I have seen featured articles that have done this before in some way.-- 1824:¡, you have a soothing way with words. I probably am overanalyzing a lot here, a bad habit of mine sometimes. This really all does draw back though, to me anyway, the "purpose" of this article. It's a proposed name for a species based on an expensive political gesture. It just feels awkward and in a sort of grey area though. Let it be is a wise path I suppose until we get an update, but right now I just don't know what impression this article is giving off, as if it's a legitimate thing. I don't know if this kind of case has been encountered before, I just feel like something needs to be done with it, but I'm ready to give up...-- 2082:, seems like I'll need your wisdom once more. I took your advice and thought about what I could do for the article, and I restored the "dermatrophy" part of the press release quote (see recent edits and summary). I believe it is necessary to include as part of Bell's reasoning for the name, and I believe not including it because of the fictitious term is against NPOV (as if his words need to be polished or hidden for image, see replies above for EPA resolution). I think my current revision is neutral and optimal and in the article's best interest, but I would appreciate your input please.-- 1402:

saying that a name that is not a scientific name must NOT be italicized, though if it were a higher-rank taxonomic name (family, order, phylum, etc.) then the rule does specify non-italics. As such, a "proposed name" falls into a gray area in the rules, and my inclination would be to either not italicize it until it has been formally published, or to put the name in quotes. Realistically, as noted, until it's been published it has no more scientific validity than "Speedipus rex" from the WB Roadrunner cartoons, or "Draco conflagratio horribilis" from D&D, and using italics

1928:, many articles use to note quotes as they were transcribed with no problem. Calling the EPA the Environment Agency is a colloquial mistake, likely from a slip or contortion of memory, but should be left alone. Yes, my first attempt with the article went extreme with the tags and I wasn't thinking straight, however you just are going to the other end of the spectrum now. If anything, excessively fixing the quote text can be seen as POV in itself - like we are trying to polish it - except for minor typographical errors, the text should be preserved as transcribed for 651: 1587:, what was wrong with the notes I gave? Bell's quotations, which are necessarily central to the references and evidence of this article within its context, are full of errors which need to be pointed out. There is no such thing as "dermatrophy" referring to skin being eaten and "caecilian" is descended from "caecus" but only by a fair etymological distance. A very many articles contain such distinctive notes as I have put in, and they are directly relevant in my view, and they maintain NPOV. What issue do you take with them?-- 1796:, I suspect that part of the problem here is that some editors are trying to describe this species in a very scientific way, but the scientific resources to do so simply aren't available. All we have available at this point are popular media sources, which can be less than ideal for this purpose. If there are details in the media or in the press release that don't make sense scientifically, we'll need to either leave those details out or find other creative ways of dealing with it without violating our prohibition on 548: 521: 1628:

the base of article. I do not see in any way how leaving these in carte-blanche is anything but detrimental and misleading for readers, and I certainly don't see how this is OR and needs to be tossed out entirely instead of maybe trimming the fat. I feel that I'm keeping within the spirit of Knowledge by pointing these out; if you want an example of an article I made with notes like these that was peer reviewed by a user recently, please see

558: 414: 269: 386: 233: 3189:, do you think this particular name is ever going to be published? It's pretty clear Envirobuild's reasoning for naming is intended to give offense (contrary to the ICodeZN's code of ethics). And even if they're not concerned about offending Trump or the code of ethics, the taxonomists who would actually be publishing the name might not want to give a name that is "just mean to the creature". 21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 708: 683: 355: 890: 833: 190: 483: 296: 758: 400: 1686:(some similar examples are provided at that link). Now if there were an article somewhere explaining the etymology of the name and how it relates to this species, we could include it, providing a consensus of editors found it relevant and useful. But none of us should pretend to editorialize this ourselves and present our own research. Does that help? 912: 1849:, no, don't give up. I believe you're right that we are in uncharted territory here, and your insight is very helpful. It's relatively simple to regurgitate facts, but to create an article that's really thought-provoking and interesting (kind of in the style of the species name in the first place) is an art form. Keep thinking and sharing. 1617:. Usually I'd suggest you find another source pointing out the error. In this case, since the source is a press release, we really shouldn't be using it anyway except to summarize/paraphrase it a bit for its own content, not as a fact source; if we think it uses some words incorrectly, then we should just leave that stuff out. 1873:, Thank you very much, I'll need to mull over what you said as I sleep. This fascinating case could set a precedent that I'd be honored to partake in. I'll try what I can to find what little further info there is out there. Tomorrow I'll review an idea I had for this, thank you for your input with all this.- 3204:

Fair question, but I don't know who the people are who are preparing the description, and only they would know what's going on. The one thing I will say is that it sounds like there was some sort of contractual agreement, so it SHOULD be getting published. If the winning bidder has refused to pay the

1770:

The quote provides necessary context though. Remember that almost if not every reference used on this article revolves around Bell and his words. For imstance, the nepotism accusation-comnevtion makes no sense without his quote and needs to be mentioned anyway relating to how and why the species was

2733:

Many people would consider donaldtrumpi is just as much of a farce as Road Runner, just slightly less expensive. Objectively speaking, until it is published this is not a real species whatosever, it is meaningless and a political gesture. I know it gets philosophical here but that's the truth. When

2369:

Thank you very much! That's an excellent addition and I hope you are as satisfied with it as I am. I may start that article as well. I wonder though, I'm just making sure, should the clarification you added about dermatotrophy stay in the main text or be formatted as a s Ed crooned note? And do you

2111:

imply that the claim is wrong, but it's not spelled out in the article. If so, I'd say we have two choices - explain the inaccuracy using reliable sources, or leave the quote out entirely. The subject of the article has to be the species itself, and our efforts should be aimed at providing the best

1551:

Honestly, I think the best approach is to not get over-analytical about this, and hopefully the actual paper will come out soon. If it weren't for people foolishly making press releases and such in advance of actually doing the science, and Wikipedians pouncing on things that aren't ready for prime

1325:

is federal. Italics gives off an impression to the average reader that this is a legitimate species, and while its status is pending, I believe italics is arguably POV in this case. I can certainly see why it's a grey area for many, but it's just not registered and, as others have said on this page

2594:

Perhaps I should have posted this comment in that section, but I don't think the issue is resolved at all. The example given in the MOS of a "derived" name refers to a band named after a species, which is not the same thing at all. This name is not derived from anything – it is the Latin name of a

1627:

I do agree that I did go a bit overboard with the s like with the "Caecilians is" instance, which looking back how some sources don't have it is anew irrelevant typo. However, in the case of Bell's etymology and the use of "dermatrophy" is crucial to his words as used by the listed references for

1079:

The sentence ought to be written about the organism, not the individual, the use of citations to snicker and guffaw at each comparison is OR, inappropriate, and puerile. The cited articles mention the comparisons, that allows a separate sentence, maybe a quotation; the content is currently serving

2179:

Well that's good then, though do you mean a source that explains the process of dermophis with its3young, or a source explaining that "dermatrophy" is just the thinning of the skin, or something else? If the latter, there is already online medical dictionaries I can cite that define dermatrophia

1213:

I don't have a firm position, but the history shows that others thought it best left off. The italic, in one sense, is a reference to the published description, which as I understand it this is not. Not accepted yet, not even published, any proposal is cited from sources that are not RS for this

2691:

That's irrelevant, media outlets (currently almost the only sources for it) provide a mix of italicized and non-italicized text. This name is in a grey area and there is, as far as any objectivity is concerned, the same level of reality to this as the Road Runner is "Speedibus rex" as was noted

1401:

As a Commissioner of the ICZN (which oversees the formation and publication of zoological names), I'll reinforce that there ARE rules about this, but the rule in this case is essentially asymmetrical. That is, if it's a scientific name, the genus and species MUST be italicized. There is no rule

1705:

That's a good summary. If for some reason we can't avoid using a source's words, and there's an error in them of the type you seem to be pointing out, then we're in a bit of a quandary. But to add quotations just so you can point out they're wrong, when no source has done so, is completely

1437:, a nearly blind …" Now what is a good term for the description, "Dermophis donaldtrumpi is about 10 cm (4 in) long …" I nearly added "said to be", but that doesn't weaken the authority enough. Adding the quotes at description conveys some doubt too, if others favour that as a solution. 1475:, pardon, if I'd known or remembered it was there before i would have asked first (my head is full of the taxonomy of bats today, literally and figuratively). I reverted that, and will cede to consensus or authority on this, but I sense there something amiss in what the article asserts. 1529:, should the unclear status of donaldtrumpi concerning italicization be denoted in the text? (i.e. "Considering the status, the name should be left without italics even though many references erroneously do so" to give a sloppy example)? Or is the lack of italics self-evident enough?-- 2399:. Feel free to expand it - you likely have more experience in this area than I. As for this article, I think this edit fixes the issue of the erroneous press release and the unexplained "sic", and provides more information about the subject, but I'm open to what others think as well. 984:

It doesn't seem like the present content is inaccurate, so long as the validity of the taxon is being disclaimed appropriately. I am concerned about subsequent edits removing the disclaimer, though, or trying to link this page to the Dermophis article. That needs to be avoided.

2209:

that describes this behaviour in another species of caecilian. It uses the term "dermatophagous" to describe the behaviour. What do you think of removing the erroneous part of the quote, and adding a sentence about this behaviour being described in other species of caecilians?

2614:

Words which have gained widespread use in English are typically not italicized, but that is obviously not the case here. Nor is this a "non-biological context" as there is detailed biological information starting with the first sentence, unlike your "T. Rex the band" example.

1657:, you were very helpful last time with me concerning this page, and have been active on this talk (and even convinced me to drop the XRD so I'm not biased). Could you please offer your views on this matter? Were my notes an improvement to the article in any way?-- 935:

As such, all the editing and addition of content is extremely premature. Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedipus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons.

1747:

The derma stuff isn't in the article now and doesn't need to be. The article already makes the point that the name was inspired by Trump's behavior and policies, and extensive quoting of the press release isn't needed beyond that, and would likely be

2854:, I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your position. This is an article about a species. The fact that the species has not been formally published is important (and duly noted in the lede), but it does not detract from the species' 1193:

I would support using italics. I'm not able to find a source that says italics should not be used for proposed species, and considering reliable sources use italics for this species, I think that's what we should use as well. Courtesy pinging

3007:, I have an idea. Can you find any updates at all to this article and see if there has been any news about the species from which we can deduce from sources how to make this less controversial? I'm limited in what I can do right now sadly.-- 2718:

Our style manual is not irrelevant for this article. Format in other media might be, since they don't all italicize the same way we do. Your Road Runner example is spurious, since that's an obvious farce. Stick to serious examples, please.

2000:

How context-dependent is supposed to be though? If Environment Agency is indeed a common name in other Anglophone countries (if so this ought to be noted in the EPA article itself), then yes that's fine. If Bell referred to instead the

330:

policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or

1958:

provided an interesting edit where he just removed the tag but left the text. Is the EPA really just called the Environment Agency in foreign media? Even so, Bell is stationed in America so it still seems like a mistake. I'm just

153: 3248: 3205:$ 25,000 bid, then I would expect legal action to compel them to pay. If the fee was paid, and the scientists refused to publish the name, I would likewise expect legal action. It really would be nice to know what 1981:

The person who said it isn't from the U.S. "Environment Agency" is likely more recognizable to him than EPA. Is there any doubt as to what he meant? There's no reason to point out what isn't even much of an error.

2941:, infoboxes are placed at the discretion of the editors on the article (local consensus), and there is no requirement that we have an infobox. On the other hand, the use of italics is prescribed in the MOS. 1552:

time (notability preceding verifiability), this would be a non-issue. Keep it simple, direct would-be editors to the talk page here, and hopefully it'll all blow over when something scientific is in print.

2256:

Dermatotrophy, as seen in B. taitanus, is a highly unusual mode of parental care previously unknown in tetrapods, in which nutrient provisioning involves remarkable adaptations of both the mothers and the

2630: 817: 2421:, I disagree with turning this into a note. The article is about the species, not about the press release, and the sentence that is actually about the species shouldn't be relegated to the appendix. 2281:

or within the quote, the former as resolved for the EPA part? Also apparently this doesn't exist yet as an article....although I just searched it and it is indeed a real and fairly accurate term!--

3273: 2629:

I see what you mean, but what about the POV concerns? Does italicized text not implicitly prematurely legitimize the name? Not all news outlets italicized the name either, such as the India Times:

2554:, I thought this had already been settled above by the clause in the MoS that says "Derived uses in non-biological contexts are not italicized: The largest carnivore in family Tyrannosauridae was 1379:, oh yes the first italics was lost, fixed it sorry! Anyway I guest I rest my case here and don't have more to say, if anyone else wants to oppose it or leave it that's fine with me of course.-- 2562:, please read the second sentence in particular; T. Rex is from Latin yet in that case is not italicized. Other words borrowed too aren't necessarily always italicized either, e.g. German 882: 473: 3253: 3243: 588: 463: 306: 2734:(or if) it gets published, then it can definitely be considered a scientific taxonomic name worthy of italicization. As is, it is just nonsense coined in English, not even Latin.-- 3258: 147: 3238: 1214:

purpose, we should demur from implying it is a species. We should also give the person who removed it the opportunity to reply, the urgency for the DYK is unrelated to that.

340: 3303: 605: 2232:

Sure nice that's fine I'd like to see your idea, edit it in right now if you want. I don't know how you want it formatted so you should do it how you think fits best--

1682:, if I read this correctly, we're quoting the person who named the species, and then we're providing our own analysis and commentary on his remarks. I would say that's 3283: 2631:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/meet-dermophis-donaldtrumpi-a-newly-discovered-amphibian-named-after-us-president-trump/articleshow/67156984.cms

2465:

I think I am done with this article for now and also await other thoughts. Edit: I just saw your reply and that's fine, I'll undo it, I just was unsure about styling.-

665: 239: 3298: 3268: 1110: 660: 641: 631: 531: 44: 1020:

The right to name the species was auctioned off by the Rainforest Trust for $ 25,000 and was purchased by the sustainable building materials company EnviroBuild.

3288: 3278: 439: 426: 391: 2035:

if "there is a significant error in the original statement" which this is not. It's a case of using different words for what is quite clearly the same thing.

3293: 3263: 595: 210:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 2655:

This has nothing to do with "legitimizing" the name as there isn't any other name for the thing. Italics indicate the words are binomial and not English.

79: 1932:. I see my current revision as perfectly reasonable and in line with the MoS and Five Pillars. These are my only intentions and goals with the text.-- 1453:

I'd removed the "a proposed name for" bit earlier as the article is about the species, not its name. I'm curious as to why you feel that bit belongs.

2692:

before many times, should that be italicized too? Both that and this are obvious fake Latin names, coined in English itself.Edit conflict: I endorse

3308: 600: 3233: 878: 326: 3149:

Your "POV" concern seems to be only about the formal publication, which isn't relevant to italics, as noted above. Let's follow our guidelines.

1245:

As it happens, I don't accept the contention that a binomial is Non-English. Systematic names were/are intended to be universal, not 'foreign'.

1059:

I didn't think it is fake news - this is a speciality of an other guy, the species exists and the naming must only get though the peer review --

197: 1122: 85: 2916:, if the standard rules and conventions apply to this article as with other species, then inter alia the infobox should be fully restored.-- 2509:. There is no requirement in the manual of style for such species to be formally identified. Even if this isn't treated as a species name, 1118: 571: 526: 583: 168: 1022:

The only thing unknown is the result of the peer review, an if the name changes it is easy to move the article to thge new name. --

135: 1044:

This sounds more like a political publicity stunt. All the references are from media and the company, no scientific publications.

1359:, don't quote the MOS to a wonk, sheesh! :) it appears to make an inappropriate contraction if the full name was not given, ie. " 786: 2002: 1180: 1144: 1090:

Stop your whining and fix it … oh, you have! The only concern remaining is blind and sighted contradiction in the description.

213: 201: 99: 30: 1363:, and sort of suggests the T. abbreviates the family Tyrannosauridae". I dare not look to see if the italic at the organism 3100:

I meant that if there was updates about this then it can be more confidently formatted without concerns about POV and such.--

2829:

those are formal, published species. This is not, its name is meaningless and has no worth. This is the crucial difference.--

792: 104: 20: 2160:, but the name "dermatrophy" is not (as it simply means thin skin). I'd like to find a reliable source that explained this. 2254:

Further down in that article it does use the term "dermatotrophy", which is similar to the term used in the press release.

579:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

1613:. Adding your opinion that a source is using a word incorrectly, based on your own research with dictionaries, is classic 1311: 782: 503: 247: 74: 1298: 714: 688: 366: 277: 255: 129: 3038: 2950: 2867: 2604: 2522: 2430: 2408: 2324: 2267: 2219: 2169: 2121: 1858: 1809: 1695: 1496: 1462: 65: 1114: 1010: 778: 499: 399: 282: 125: 650: 3168: 2776: 2673:; while italics in that article are inconsistent, most instance of "Mycoplasma laboratorium" are not italicized. 2461:, as I meant to say before auto correct I *sectioned* the note you added as ancillary but necessary information, 1510: 1476: 1438: 1368: 1246: 1215: 1091: 1081: 302: 339:. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see 2770: 2764: 805: 1629: 354: 175: 1005:

I have (third-hand) information that this is official, and I am trying to track it down and find a reference.

3029:

I'm not sure how more sources would help this discussion. Either we follow the manual of style or we don't.

2670: 1049: 332: 219: 109: 865: 24: 1509:, unusual? it's as boring as batshit, frankly speaking, it can at least be correct in a taxonomic sense. 3154: 2785: 2758: 2724: 2660: 2620: 2542: 2040: 1987: 1235: 1064: 1027: 1006: 848: 372: 430:, an effort to make Knowledge a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for 3109: 3016: 2925: 2838: 2743: 2705: 2642: 2581: 2474: 2463:

please revert if you feel that is not needed. I will edit that article too thank you for starting it.

2379: 2312: 2290: 2241: 2189: 2143: 2091: 2058: 2014: 1968: 1941: 1882: 1833: 1780: 1734: 1666: 1641: 1596: 1538: 1484: 1448: 1388: 1376: 1335: 1256: 1160: 967: 719: 693: 563: 3167:, your assertion this is not english? I'm happy to revert myself if you demonstrate how that is so. 1106: 295: 141: 3194: 2780:, and many others which are italicized. If this is "nonsense coined in English" then so are those. 2682: 1174: 1138: 251: 161: 55: 1045: 243: 70: 832: 547: 520: 2049:

Okay, I was just making sure. Thank you. I believe the current form as you put is acceptable.--

3214: 2674: 2510: 1557: 1411: 1270: 1227: 1200: 990: 941: 207: 51: 3164: 3150: 2824: 2781: 2720: 2656: 2616: 2559: 2538: 2036: 1983: 1955: 1263: 1231: 1060: 1023: 2005:

and instead said "Urban Department" or something like that, would that merit a sic or no?--

3103: 3031: 3010: 2943: 2938: 2919: 2860: 2851: 2832: 2737: 2699: 2636: 2597: 2575: 2515: 2498: 2468: 2423: 2418: 2401: 2392: 2373: 2317: 2284: 2260: 2235: 2212: 2202: 2183: 2162: 2137: 2114: 2104: 2085: 2052: 2008: 1962: 1935: 1876: 1851: 1846: 1827: 1802: 1793: 1774: 1749: 1728: 1688: 1683: 1679: 1660: 1635: 1590: 1532: 1489: 1455: 1382: 1356: 1329: 1322: 1195: 961: 1126: 2858:

in any way. The standard rules and conventions regarding species apply to this article.

3190: 2693: 2678: 1758: 1712: 1425:

I think this identified something that was bothering me, I modified the lead (again), "

1277: 1167: 1131: 918: 871: 413: 385: 258:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

958:

Thank you for stating this. Should I tag for accuracy among its many other problems?--

438:. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the 3227: 2396: 2304: 2278: 2108: 576: 3210: 3184: 1797: 1614: 1553: 1526: 1407: 986: 953: 937: 3218: 3198: 3171: 3158: 3117: 3043: 3024: 2955: 2933: 2872: 2846: 2789: 2751: 2728: 2713: 2686: 2669:

Dermophis is derived from Greek, not Latin. The closest parallel here is probably

2664: 2650: 2624: 2609: 2589: 2546: 2527: 2482: 2435: 2413: 2387: 2329: 2298: 2272: 2249: 2224: 2197: 2174: 2151: 2126: 2099: 2066: 2044: 2022: 1991: 1976: 1949: 1890: 1863: 1841: 1814: 1788: 1763: 1742: 1717: 1700: 1674: 1649: 1604: 1561: 1546: 1513: 1501: 1479: 1467: 1441: 1415: 1396: 1371: 1343: 1249: 1239: 1218: 1204: 1188: 1152: 1094: 1084: 1068: 1053: 1031: 1014: 994: 975: 945: 853: 2855: 1929: 707: 682: 3004: 2913: 2551: 2458: 2366: 2229: 2206: 2131: 2079: 1870: 1821: 1722: 1654: 1506: 1472: 553: 1105:

Should we be using italics for this proposed species name? Some articles do:

2568: 2308: 2157: 1925: 1753: 1707: 1622: 1584: 1434: 843: 431: 2303:

I added a sentence to the article which I think resolves it. An article on

575:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the 222:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

2677:

is another case of something that looks like a scientific name but isn't.

1321:

Until D. donaldtrumpi is formally registered, it's about as scientific as

1125:. Might it be best to err towards putting it in italics given that is how 482: 2506: 931:

This has NOT been confirmed as a new species, nor formally published yet

2107:, is the "dermatrophy" claim factually incorrect? The and the link to 2028: 1430: 435: 2563: 809: 1800:. In this case, it may be better to leave some details unexplained. 1282:

I would cite this part of the MoS for this rather interesting case:

232: 1295: 906: 827: 752: 348: 318: 290: 263: 227: 184: 15: 1198:

as the one who originally reverted the addition of italics.--

3249:

Start-Class amphibian and reptile articles of Low-importance

1080:

another purpose. Trump is a god-level troll, don't feed it.

888: 756: 649: 481: 1303:

Derived uses in non-biological contexts are not italicized:

250:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 883:

Template:Did you know nominations/Dermophis donaldtrumpi

870:

did so to raise awareness of Donald Trump's policies on

2494: 1165:

As you undid my edit (and I assume this would be BRD).

2558:

itself, but Unicorn was an album by the band T. Rex."

1226:

Non-English words, including New Latin binomials, are

881:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at 160: 1309:

itself, but Unicorn was an album by the band T. Rex.

917:

This article refers to a taxon that doesn't have its

3274:

Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance

2537:

is definitely not English. It should be italicized.

1305:

The largest carnivore in family Tyrannosauridae was

862:... that the man who named a nearly blind amphibian 785:. Please replace this template with a more specific 1771:

named relating to its behavior with its children.--

1326:

so far, the name is not legitimate until it...is.--

2277:Ah interesting , in that case should it appear as 1367:was lost on your clipboard, because it should be. 2156:It looks like the phenomenon may be correct, per 1487:, no worries. It's certainly an unusual article. 717:, a project which is currently considered to be 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1611: 1610:We're talking about the material removed here 281:. Please read recent comments and look in the 3254:Amphibian and reptile articles needing images 3244:Low-importance amphibian and reptile articles 448:Knowledge:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles 246:while commenting or presenting evidence, and 174: 8: 3259:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles articles 451:Template:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles 2370:think the article in general now is good?-- 352: 3239:Start-Class amphibian and reptile articles 677: 515: 380: 335:contentious material about living persons 3304:Knowledge requested photographs in Panama 2112:information available about the species. 856:). The text of the entry was as follows: 808:may be able to locate suitable images on 2307:may be worth writing. The references in 3284:Low-importance U.S. Presidents articles 879:Knowledge:Recent additions/2019/January 679: 517: 382: 2255: 921:listed. If you can, please provide it. 3299:Knowledge requested images of animals 3269:Low-importance United States articles 3209:happened in the intervening 5 years. 2513:applies as these terms are in Latin. 877:A record of the entry may be seen at 7: 3289:WikiProject U.S. Presidents articles 3279:Start-Class U.S. Presidents articles 2756:It's similar to the construction of 713:This article is within the scope of 661:WikiProject United States Presidents 569:This article is within the scope of 3178:Is this ever going to be published? 616:Knowledge:WikiProject United States 427:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles 371:It is of interest to the following 305:on 20 December 2018. The result of 23:for discussing improvements to the 3294:WikiProject United States articles 3264:Start-Class United States articles 2180:(same word but -y is much rarer).- 619:Template:WikiProject United States 14: 889: 806:Openverse Creative Commons Search 278:previous arguments being restated 910: 831: 706: 681: 556: 546: 519: 412: 398: 384: 353: 294: 267: 231: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3309:Knowledge Did you know articles 2501:, genera and species are to be 2003:Department of Urban Development 636:This article has been rated as 468:This article has been rated as 301:This article was nominated for 212:Content must be written from a 196:The subject of this article is 3234:Knowledge controversial topics 1421:Thank you for your service! o7 454:amphibian and reptile articles 1: 1069:10:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 1054:06:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 1032:10:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 1015:05:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 995:00:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 976:00:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 946:00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 658:This article is supported by 327:biographies of living persons 42:Put new text under old text. 3219:23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 3199:21:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) 3172:14:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC) 3159:14:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC) 3118:03:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 3044:03:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 3025:03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2956:03:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2934:03:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2873:03:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2847:02:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2790:02:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2752:01:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2729:00:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 2714:19:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2687:18:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2665:18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2651:18:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2625:18:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2610:18:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2590:18:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2547:18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2528:18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) 2483:05:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2436:05:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2414:05:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2388:05:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2330:05:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2299:05:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2273:05:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2250:05:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2225:05:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2198:05:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2175:04:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2152:04:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2127:04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 2100:04:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC) 729:Knowledge:WikiProject Panama 248:do not make personal attacks 2067:21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 2045:20:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 2023:20:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 1992:20:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 1977:20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 1950:20:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 1891:07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1864:07:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1842:07:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1815:07:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1789:06:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1764:06:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1743:06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1718:06:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1701:06:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1675:05:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1650:05:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1605:05:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1562:22:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1547:21:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1514:19:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1502:18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1480:18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1468:18:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1442:18:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1416:17:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1397:16:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1372:16:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1344:16:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1250:16:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1240:16:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1219:15:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1205:14:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1189:14:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1153:14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1127:species should be displayed 1095:06:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 1085:05:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC) 852:column on 17 January 2019 ( 732:Template:WikiProject Panama 337:must be removed immediately 206:When updating the article, 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3325: 642:project's importance scale 474:project's importance scale 2777:Desmopachria barackobamai 701: 657: 635: 572:WikiProject United States 541: 489: 467: 407: 379: 274:Discussions on this page 208:be bold, but not reckless 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2771:Aptostichus barackobamai 2765:Tetragramma donaldtrumpi 2395:, I started the article 1630:Cannabis in Vatican City 1406:that it is a real name. 842:appeared on Knowledge's 765:It is requested that an 577:United States of America 490:It is requested that an 2671:Mycoplasma laboratorium 445:Amphibians and Reptiles 392:Amphibians and Reptiles 2535:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 2158:Caecilian#Reproduction 1921:Quote dilemma, Part II 1427:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 894: 866:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 840:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 802:Free Image Search Tool 787:media request template 775:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 761: 654: 622:United States articles 486: 421:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 361:This article is rated 200:and content may be in 75:avoid personal attacks 25:Dermophis donaldtrumpi 2759:Neopalpa donaldtrumpi 892: 796:may be able to help! 793:Wikipedians in Panama 760: 653: 485: 442:for more information. 214:neutral point of view 100:Neutral point of view 2313:Boulengerula taitana 1228:generally italicized 812:and other web sites. 564:United States portal 105:No original research 783:improve its quality 781:in this article to 590:Articles Requested! 504:improve its quality 502:in this article to 2696:'s related point.- 1752:. Problem solved. 895: 762: 715:WikiProject Panama 655: 487: 367:content assessment 285:before commenting. 280: 86:dispute resolution 47: 3115: 3022: 2931: 2844: 2749: 2711: 2675:Bifidus regularis 2648: 2587: 2511:MOS:FOREIGNITALIC 2480: 2385: 2315:would be of use. 2296: 2247: 2195: 2149: 2097: 2064: 2020: 1974: 1947: 1888: 1839: 1798:original research 1786: 1740: 1672: 1647: 1602: 1544: 1394: 1361:Tyrannosaurus rex 1341: 1316: 1315: 1186: 1150: 973: 925: 924: 899: 898: 826: 825: 813: 751: 750: 747: 746: 743: 742: 676: 675: 672: 671: 514: 513: 510: 509: 347: 346: 317: 316: 289: 288: 275: 262: 261: 226: 225: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3316: 3188: 3116: 3102: 3041: 3037: 3023: 3009: 2953: 2949: 2932: 2918: 2870: 2866: 2845: 2831: 2828: 2750: 2736: 2712: 2698: 2649: 2635: 2607: 2603: 2588: 2574: 2533:Whatever it is, 2525: 2521: 2481: 2467: 2433: 2429: 2411: 2407: 2386: 2372: 2327: 2323: 2297: 2283: 2270: 2266: 2248: 2234: 2222: 2218: 2196: 2182: 2172: 2168: 2150: 2136: 2124: 2120: 2098: 2084: 2065: 2051: 2021: 2007: 1975: 1961: 1948: 1934: 1889: 1875: 1861: 1857: 1840: 1826: 1812: 1808: 1787: 1773: 1741: 1727: 1698: 1694: 1673: 1659: 1648: 1634: 1626: 1603: 1589: 1545: 1531: 1499: 1495: 1465: 1461: 1452: 1422: 1395: 1381: 1342: 1328: 1296: 1281: 1274: 1267: 1260: 1203: 1183: 1177: 1172: 1170: 1164: 1147: 1141: 1136: 1134: 1111:Business Insider 1040:Publicity stunt? 1007:EinkomischerKauz 974: 960: 957: 914: 913: 907: 891: 835: 828: 822: 820: 799: 789:where possible. 759: 753: 737: 736: 733: 730: 727: 710: 703: 702: 697: 685: 678: 624: 623: 620: 617: 614: 566: 561: 560: 559: 550: 543: 542: 537: 534: 523: 516: 456: 455: 452: 449: 446: 416: 409: 408: 403: 402: 401: 396: 388: 381: 364: 358: 357: 349: 341:this noticeboard 319: 298: 291: 271: 270: 264: 254:is not reached, 235: 234: 228: 192: 191: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3324: 3323: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3224: 3223: 3182: 3180: 3169:cygnis insignis 3114: 3101: 3039: 3030: 3021: 3008: 2951: 2942: 2930: 2917: 2868: 2859: 2843: 2830: 2822: 2748: 2735: 2710: 2697: 2647: 2634: 2605: 2596: 2586: 2573: 2523: 2514: 2491: 2479: 2466: 2431: 2422: 2409: 2400: 2384: 2371: 2325: 2316: 2295: 2282: 2268: 2259: 2246: 2233: 2220: 2211: 2194: 2181: 2170: 2161: 2148: 2135: 2122: 2113: 2096: 2083: 2063: 2050: 2019: 2006: 1973: 1960: 1946: 1933: 1923: 1887: 1874: 1859: 1850: 1838: 1825: 1810: 1801: 1785: 1772: 1739: 1726: 1706:inappropriate. 1696: 1687: 1671: 1658: 1646: 1633: 1620: 1601: 1588: 1582: 1543: 1530: 1511:cygnis insignis 1497: 1488: 1485:Cygnis insignis 1477:cygnis insignis 1463: 1454: 1449:Cygnis insignis 1446: 1439:cygnis insignis 1429:is a proposed 1420: 1393: 1380: 1377:Cygnis insignis 1369:cygnis insignis 1340: 1327: 1323:Federal Express 1275: 1268: 1261: 1257:Cygnis insignis 1254: 1247:cygnis insignis 1216:cygnis insignis 1199: 1181: 1175: 1168: 1161:Cygnis insignis 1158: 1145: 1139: 1132: 1103: 1092:cygnis insignis 1082:cygnis insignis 1077: 1042: 972: 959: 951: 933: 911: 818: 816: 757: 735:Panama articles 734: 731: 728: 725: 724: 691: 621: 618: 615: 612: 611: 610: 596:Become a Member 562: 557: 555: 535: 529: 453: 450: 447: 444: 443: 397: 394: 365:on Knowledge's 362: 268: 256:other solutions 189: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3322: 3320: 3312: 3311: 3306: 3301: 3296: 3291: 3286: 3281: 3276: 3271: 3266: 3261: 3256: 3251: 3246: 3241: 3236: 3226: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3179: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3108: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3015: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2924: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2837: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2742: 2704: 2689: 2641: 2627: 2612: 2580: 2549: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2473: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2416: 2378: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2289: 2252: 2240: 2188: 2154: 2142: 2090: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2057: 2013: 1995: 1994: 1979: 1967: 1940: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1881: 1832: 1779: 1733: 1720: 1665: 1652: 1640: 1595: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1537: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1423: 1387: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1334: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1300: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1208: 1207: 1191: 1102: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1017: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 979: 978: 966: 932: 929: 927: 923: 922: 915: 904: 901: 897: 896: 886: 876: 875: 872:climate change 836: 824: 823: 814: 798: 763: 749: 748: 745: 744: 741: 740: 738: 711: 699: 698: 686: 674: 673: 670: 669: 666:Low-importance 656: 646: 645: 638:Low-importance 634: 628: 627: 625: 609: 608: 603: 598: 593: 586: 584:Template Usage 580: 568: 567: 551: 539: 538: 536:Low‑importance 524: 512: 511: 508: 507: 488: 478: 477: 470:Low-importance 466: 460: 459: 457: 417: 405: 404: 395:Low‑importance 389: 377: 376: 370: 359: 345: 344: 333:poorly sourced 322: 315: 314: 307:the discussion 299: 287: 286: 276:often lead to 272: 260: 259: 236: 224: 223: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3321: 3310: 3307: 3305: 3302: 3300: 3297: 3295: 3292: 3290: 3287: 3285: 3282: 3280: 3277: 3275: 3272: 3270: 3267: 3265: 3262: 3260: 3257: 3255: 3252: 3250: 3247: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3237: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3229: 3220: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3186: 3177: 3173: 3170: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3119: 3113: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3045: 3042: 3036: 3035: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3020: 3019: 3014: 3013: 3006: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2957: 2954: 2948: 2947: 2940: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2929: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2915: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2874: 2871: 2865: 2864: 2857: 2853: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2842: 2841: 2836: 2835: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2747: 2746: 2741: 2740: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2709: 2708: 2703: 2702: 2695: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2632: 2628: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2611: 2608: 2602: 2601: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2585: 2584: 2579: 2578: 2571: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2550: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2526: 2520: 2519: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2488: 2484: 2478: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2437: 2434: 2428: 2427: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2412: 2406: 2405: 2398: 2397:Dermatotrophy 2394: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2383: 2382: 2377: 2376: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2331: 2328: 2322: 2321: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305:dermatotrophy 2302: 2301: 2300: 2294: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2271: 2265: 2264: 2258: 2253: 2251: 2245: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2217: 2216: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2193: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2167: 2166: 2159: 2155: 2153: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2119: 2118: 2110: 2109:dermatophagia 2106: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2095: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2068: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2055: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2018: 2017: 2012: 2011: 2004: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1980: 1978: 1972: 1971: 1966: 1965: 1959:interested.-- 1957: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1945: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1931: 1927: 1920: 1892: 1886: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1872: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1856: 1855: 1848: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1837: 1836: 1831: 1830: 1823: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1813: 1807: 1806: 1799: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1784: 1783: 1778: 1777: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1731: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1710: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1699: 1693: 1692: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1663: 1656: 1653: 1651: 1645: 1644: 1639: 1638: 1631: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1616: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1593: 1586: 1580:Notes removed 1579: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1542: 1541: 1536: 1535: 1528: 1525: 1515: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1494: 1493: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1460: 1459: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1392: 1391: 1386: 1385: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1345: 1339: 1338: 1333: 1332: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1279: 1272: 1265: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1220: 1217: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1192: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1178: 1171: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1142: 1135: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1100: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046:DerElektriker 1039: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 996: 992: 988: 983: 982: 981: 980: 977: 971: 970: 965: 964: 955: 950: 949: 948: 947: 943: 939: 930: 928: 920: 919:type locality 916: 909: 908: 905: 902: 887: 884: 880: 873: 869: 868: 867: 861: 858: 857: 855: 851: 850: 845: 841: 837: 834: 830: 829: 821: 815: 811: 807: 803: 797: 795: 794: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 755: 754: 739: 722: 721: 716: 712: 709: 705: 704: 700: 695: 690: 687: 684: 680: 667: 664:(assessed as 663: 662: 652: 648: 647: 643: 639: 633: 630: 629: 626: 613:United States 607: 604: 602: 599: 597: 594: 592: 591: 587: 585: 582: 581: 578: 574: 573: 565: 554: 552: 549: 545: 544: 540: 533: 528: 527:United States 525: 522: 518: 505: 501: 497: 493: 484: 480: 479: 475: 471: 465: 462: 461: 458: 441: 437: 433: 429: 428: 423: 422: 418: 415: 411: 410: 406: 393: 390: 387: 383: 378: 374: 368: 360: 356: 351: 350: 342: 338: 334: 329: 328: 323: 321: 320: 312: 308: 304: 300: 297: 293: 292: 284: 279: 273: 266: 265: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 230: 229: 221: 217: 215: 209: 205: 203: 199: 198:controversial 194: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3206: 3181: 3148: 3110: 3105:~Sıgehelmus♗ 3104: 3033: 3017: 3012:~Sıgehelmus♗ 3011: 2945: 2926: 2921:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2920: 2862: 2839: 2834:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2833: 2775: 2769: 2763: 2757: 2744: 2739:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2738: 2706: 2701:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2700: 2643: 2638:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2637: 2599: 2582: 2577:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2576: 2567: 2555: 2534: 2517: 2502: 2492: 2475: 2470:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2469: 2462: 2425: 2403: 2380: 2375:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2374: 2319: 2291: 2286:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2285: 2262: 2242: 2237:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2236: 2214: 2190: 2185:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2184: 2164: 2144: 2139:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2138: 2116: 2092: 2087:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2086: 2059: 2054:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2053: 2032: 2031:says to use 2029:style manual 2015: 2010:~Sıgehelmus♗ 2009: 1969: 1964:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1963: 1942: 1937:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1936: 1924: 1883: 1878:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1877: 1853: 1834: 1829:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1828: 1804: 1781: 1776:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1775: 1759: 1754: 1735: 1730:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1729: 1713: 1708: 1690: 1667: 1662:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1661: 1642: 1637:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1636: 1597: 1592:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1591: 1583: 1539: 1534:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1533: 1491: 1457: 1426: 1403: 1389: 1384:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1383: 1364: 1360: 1336: 1331:~Sıgehelmus♗ 1330: 1306: 1302: 1271:SkyGazer 512 1225: 1201:SkyGazer 512 1166: 1130: 1119:The Guardian 1104: 1078: 1043: 1019: 968: 963:~Sıgehelmus♗ 962: 934: 926: 903: 900: 864: 863: 860:Did you know 859: 849:Did you know 847: 839: 838:A fact from 791: 790: 774: 770: 766: 718: 659: 637: 601:Project Talk 589: 570: 495: 491: 469: 440:project page 425: 420: 419: 373:WikiProjects 336: 325: 310: 238:Please stay 211: 195: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3165:Jonathunder 3151:Jonathunder 2825:Jonathunder 2782:Jonathunder 2721:Jonathunder 2657:Jonathunder 2617:Jonathunder 2560:Jonathunder 2539:Jonathunder 2279:dermatrophy 2205:, here's a 2037:Jonathunder 1984:Jonathunder 1956:Jonathunder 1264:Jonathunder 1232:Jonathunder 1107:EnviroBuild 1075:Description 1061:Joergens.mi 1024:Joergens.mi 854:check views 424:is part of 363:Start-class 311:speedy keep 148:free images 31:not a forum 3228:Categories 2939:Sigehelmus 2856:notability 2852:Sigehelmus 2503:italicized 2499:Sigehelmus 2493:Regarding 2419:Sigehelmus 2393:Sigehelmus 2203:Sigehelmus 2105:Sigehelmus 1847:Sigehelmus 1794:Sigehelmus 1680:Sigehelmus 1357:Sigehelmus 1196:Sigehelmus 771:photograph 532:Presidents 432:amphibians 324:While the 3191:Plantdrew 2694:Plantdrew 2679:Plantdrew 2595:species. 2569:Sonderweg 2495:this edit 2309:Caecilian 1684:synthesis 1435:caecilian 1278:Anarchyte 1169:Anarchyte 1133:Anarchyte 1115:The Quint 893:Knowledge 844:Main Page 252:consensus 220:citations 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2507:MOS:LIFE 1750:WP:UNDUE 1123:NewsWeek 779:included 720:inactive 694:inactive 500:included 436:reptiles 303:deletion 283:archives 218:Include 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3211:Dyanega 3185:Dyanega 2489:Italics 1554:Dyanega 1527:Dyanega 1431:species 1408:Dyanega 1404:implies 1101:Italics 987:Dyanega 954:Dyanega 938:Dyanega 846:in the 640:on the 472:on the 202:dispute 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2564:kitsch 2556:T. rex 2257:young. 2207:source 1365:T. rex 1307:T. rex 1121:, and 819:Upload 810:Flickr 726:Panama 689:Panama 606:Alerts 496:images 369:scale. 126:Google 3111:(Tøk) 3018:(Tøk) 3005:Bradv 2927:(Tøk) 2914:Bradv 2840:(Tøk) 2745:(Tøk) 2707:(Tøk) 2644:(Tøk) 2583:(Tøk) 2552:Bradv 2476:(Tøk) 2459:Bradv 2381:(Tøk) 2367:Bradv 2292:(Tøk) 2243:(Tøk) 2230:Bradv 2191:(Tøk) 2145:(Tøk) 2132:Bradv 2093:(Tøk) 2080:Bradv 2060:(Tøk) 2016:(Tøk) 1970:(Tøk) 1943:(Tøk) 1884:(Tøk) 1871:Bradv 1835:(Tøk) 1822:Bradv 1782:(Tøk) 1736:(Tøk) 1723:Bradv 1668:(Tøk) 1655:Bradv 1643:(Tøk) 1615:WP:OR 1598:(Tøk) 1540:(Tøk) 1507:Bradv 1473:Bradv 1390:(Tøk) 1337:(Tøk) 969:(Tøk) 767:image 492:image 244:civil 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3215:talk 3195:talk 3155:talk 3032:Brad 2944:Brad 2861:Brad 2786:talk 2725:talk 2683:talk 2661:talk 2621:talk 2598:Brad 2566:vs. 2543:talk 2516:Brad 2505:per 2424:Brad 2402:Brad 2318:Brad 2311:and 2261:Brad 2213:Brad 2163:Brad 2115:Brad 2041:talk 2027:Our 1988:talk 1930:WP:V 1926:EEng 1852:Brad 1803:Brad 1689:Brad 1623:EEng 1585:EEng 1558:talk 1490:Brad 1456:Brad 1412:talk 1236:talk 1182:work 1176:talk 1146:work 1140:talk 1065:talk 1050:talk 1028:talk 1011:talk 991:talk 942:talk 800:The 434:and 309:was 242:and 240:calm 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3207:has 2572:.-- 2497:by 2033:sic 1760:Eng 1714:Eng 1632:.-- 1433:of 804:or 777:be 773:of 769:or 632:Low 498:be 494:or 464:Low 176:TWL 3230:: 3217:) 3197:) 3157:) 3040:🍁 2952:🍁 2869:🍁 2788:) 2774:, 2768:, 2762:, 2727:) 2685:) 2663:) 2633:-- 2623:) 2606:🍁 2545:) 2524:🍁 2432:🍁 2410:🍁 2326:🍁 2269:🍁 2221:🍁 2171:🍁 2123:🍁 2043:) 1990:) 1860:🍁 1811:🍁 1697:🍁 1560:) 1498:🍁 1464:🍁 1414:) 1312:” 1299:“ 1238:) 1230:. 1179:| 1143:| 1129:? 1117:, 1113:, 1109:, 1067:) 1052:) 1030:) 1013:) 993:) 944:) 668:). 530:: 156:) 54:; 3213:( 3193:( 3187:: 3183:@ 3153:( 3034:v 2946:v 2863:v 2827:: 2823:@ 2784:( 2723:( 2681:( 2659:( 2619:( 2600:v 2541:( 2518:v 2426:v 2404:v 2320:v 2263:v 2215:v 2165:v 2117:v 2039:( 1986:( 1854:v 1805:v 1755:E 1709:E 1691:v 1625:: 1621:@ 1556:( 1492:v 1458:v 1451:: 1447:@ 1410:( 1280:: 1276:@ 1273:: 1269:@ 1266:: 1262:@ 1259:: 1255:@ 1234:( 1185:) 1173:( 1163:: 1159:@ 1149:) 1137:( 1063:( 1048:( 1026:( 1009:( 989:( 956:: 952:@ 940:( 885:. 874:? 723:. 696:) 692:( 644:. 506:. 476:. 375:: 343:. 313:. 216:. 204:. 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index