Knowledge talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 43

3976:

answer no. I think infoboxes should display very brief snippets of information that can be interpreted at a glance. Adding taxa beyond the classic Linnaean ranks seems to me to be clutter that will confuse the average reader (though it certainly adds precision, which the average reader will likely not notice). Question 2 is "should we believe and write about a recently published summation and revision of eukaryotic taxonomy?" On that question, I'm a yes. We've known for a long time that Linnaean ranks aren't going to accurately capture divergence of groups. Unranked taxa have been widespread for a long time and are largely uncontroversial. It's great that this group is going through and synthesizing phylogenetic data to give a larger view of eukaryote phylogeny. I'd feel comfortable writing about it in the relevant section of an article. I just don't think it's beneficial to expand the taxoboxes to include non-Linnaean ranks (and I think that's what prompted

3481:

without formal rank designations. The hierarchy is represented by indented paragraphs. The nomenclatural priority is given to the oldest name (and its authority) that correctly assembled genera or higher groups together into a clade, except where its composition was substantially modified. In these cases, we have used a newer term and its appropriate authorship. In cases where ranks were created to include a single lower rank, the higher ranks were eliminated as superfluous. In this scheme, monotypic taxa are represented by the genus only. Nested clades represent monophyletic lineages as best we know and para- or polyphyletic groups are so indicated. This system of hierarchical nameless ranks, that ignores endings of clade names," So indeed nameless appears to refer to more than just the ending of the names, as is their long standing practice, going back to e.g. 2007.

3394:. I've never been convinced that the distinction between primary and secondary references works well in science, especially within taxonomy. Some of the best reviews of taxonomy are included in papers making taxonomic proposals, so the papers have elements of both primary and secondary sources. The overall eukaryote divisions included in Adl et al (2019) seem to represent a good review of the current status, reasonably consistent with other proposals, which makes it a good secondary source. The specific proposal to use "system of hierarchical nameless ranks" is more controversial and is likely to remain so. They also go on to include some ranks in Table 1 "to help orient the student", including just two kingdoms: Bilateria and Embryophyta. Given they propose to use nameless ranks, I don't think they should be used as a source for ranks. 3893:. What exactly is so radical about the Adl et al 2019 proposal? This paper is the third in a series of papers (Adl et al, 2005, 2012, 2019) proposing a revised taxonomy of eukaryotes based on an ongoing review of the literature. It is generally conservative with the groupings and the major supergroups have been stable since 2007 or 2012. The position of a number of taxa that fall outside the main supergroups is left incertae sedis, even though a number of recent papers have suggested clearer relationships (Burki et al 2016, Brown et al 2018, Lax et al 2018, Cavalier-Smith 2018, etc). It doesn't contain primary research so I don't think the proposed taxonomy should be rejected because it is a primary source. 5411:, plants), and try to keep them consistent with the articles. If it's hard to keep limited trees in articles properly reffed, for the navboxes it is probably impossible; They are never based on a single or just a few articles, which is a problem. No room for alternative phylogenies. It is also not clear whether the grouping should be phylogenetically based, which incidentally leads to conflicts. What I am trying to do is when I make a change, is to refer to the scientific article to which the change was made. When following the links in the taxoboxes, one invariably gets to wikipedia pages with different cladogram or taxoboxes, e.g. 223: 3840:- Adl et al suggest a reordering of Eukaryotes, but they also note that their research is still incomplete, and that further data from other sources (such as deep oceans) could cause them to reclassify or reorder even further. I think we need to wait until the scientific community figures out the ramifications of the study and more literature is published. This would be an absolutely massive undertaking for us, and that energy shouldn't be wasted if in a few months time another paper refutes Adl, or Adl refines their findings. And furthermore, Adl is still a primary source! We need a reliable secondary source here. 497:. And potential orchid hybrids number in the millions; orchid species are maintained largely by allopatry and pollinator specificity. Bring two orchids together in one place and have a human transfer the pollen? Boom, new hybrid. SPECIESOUTCOMES should not apply to human created hybrids; notability standards for human created hybrids should probably follow the standards for other works of humans (e.g., books, artworks, etc.). As for naturally ocurring hybrids, I think the bar should be higher than that they are simply documented to exist (i.e. SPECIESOUTCOMES), but I'm not sure quite what it should be. 5371:, which covers families) get placed willy nilly on species articles that aren't included in the navbox. For organisms other than birds and mammals, our coverage of species is far from complete, so a navbox would mostly be a sea of redlinks (although mammals are the only group where navboxes are widespread anyway). As a reader, the only navboxes I've ever really clicked on are geographic (e.g. cities in a US county) or chronological (earlier/later holders of a political office or winners of an award). I've never used an organismal navbox to browse related topics. 2710: 1700: 177: 3600:. I echo the caution expressed by the editors above. Of all the higher level taxonomic ranks, changing that of Kingdom is bound to be the most problematic. The terms "Animal Kingdom" and "plant kingdom" are just too ingrained in most readers understanding and will be a major hurdle for the scientific community at large before they adopt such a "radical" change in papers and text books. It could be a generation before this one is settled enough to reflect in the taxoboxes of an encyclopedia. 5325:

creators see an opportunities for yet another mechanical assemblage of boxified content,they do not tend to be maintainers of their creations, that falls to those concerned with uncited and contradictory data in our articles. For me, the biggest objection is the mess it makes of incoming links, which is why categories and some lists can be useful, I place a high value on the cross-referencing of properly cited content. Still, the banana box is lovely,

31: 2045:). But I run across many instances where one or both of the disease/cause articles are stubs and run into a bit of resistance on proposed mergers solely on the assumption that a disease name is totally different from the organism name. Similarly, sometimes even when there is only one article, under the disease name, people reject the addition of a taxobox on the basis of it being a 'disease' and not a 'fungus' or whatever the taxon is. 4416:

they were regarded as significantly distinct, while now they are being argued to be virtually the same. Sorry, not buying it. If it was not assigned to a above genus level because of lack of diversity, it's the wrong argument also, as as soon as it has a descendent, it has to go all the way to above the descendent's level without consideration of diversity for it to work in a modern, phylogenetically determined taxonomy.

4200:– we don't have to reflect the very latest view expressed in a primary source like a journal, but can wait to see if other sources pick it up. I would certainly discuss Adl et al. (2019) in articles, just as I added text discussing the earlier Adl et al. system. It's just a fact that a taxobox can only show one of the possible views, and the consensus has been that this view should not have inconsistent ranks. 2174:

the fungal or viral thingamajig that lives on the parasite. I think that keeping them separate is the solution, adding a note or expanding stubs is simpler than untangling forks or knotty lumps. That is not to say that a taxon or disease article ought not to be expanded with the related info instead of creating the stub, but I don't think the reader would gain more by merging two stubs with a different scope.

1952: 918: 559: 4372:

not resolved" To me these arguments sound very contortionist, where showing the true consensus direct phylogenetic status is inhibited by the consensus of the naming convention. To me it is clear showing the phylogenetic status is more important than following the naming, especially when everyone is already making cases that the naming is not consistent.

3103:. This is one suggestion among many. It is evident that taxonomy at kingdom level (and above) is in turmoil and will eventually result in a quite different tree of life. Policy is to wait until the situation stabilises and there is sufficient agreement for the way ahead to be clear, as summarised in reliable secondary sources like review articles. 5300:, but those examples have a few problems, in my mind. First, they are gigantic and so are then less useful. Second, they basically replicate much of what's in a Taxobox. But they are typically collapsed and way at the bottom, so not so much of a negative. Personally I'd like them to include links to related topics not found in taxoboxes, like 3205:

paper at doi:10.1111/jeu.12691 is a synthesis of primary research with a wide range of authorship and so, I believe, presents a system we can legitimately use. Personally, I'm still digesting it. There are two different issues: what are the main clades that should be recognized, e.g. in taxoboxes, and what names should be used for these clades."

2657: 3813:

the confusion between inconsistency and consensus. Proposing here to make clear which of these three issues is being addressed in each comment. In any case, the comments make it clear that this is not just about Adl et al, but about many more phylogenies (Birds in Dinosaurs, genus Homo in genus Australopithecus, just to start...)

2196:)". One article might still make sense, but the writing has to reflect the use of raspberry spur blight as the common name for both the disease and the organism (which are not the same thing logically as something can't cause itself). It would need an opening sentence like "Raspberry spur blight is the common name of the fungus 3227:"the scientific literature continues to use these inconsistent ranks regardless." --- It has no choice but to use what there is, and where appropriate to object to it, add to it, point out inconsistencies, propose resolutions, adduce new evidence, and so on. All of these are strategies which we can't, shouldn't, or ( 3934:

adopted by others (i.e there is consensus). This makes is a good potential secondary source for the overall topology of the eukaryote taxonomy. Whether to abandon named ranks is a secondary question that can be decided independently. Here I agree there will be no consensus and unlikely to be so for a long time.

2769: 5606:

Yes to the comment above. After looking a bit more closely, I am wrong - although some should be merged, others just need the English label to be changed. This is because the items represent names and unfortunately there is no way of identifying organisms (which can each have many names). So every

5360:

I'm not a fan of them. I hate the mess they make of incoming links (although that is only a problem for editors, not readers). They impose a maintenance burden; they are yet another place that needs to be edited to keep taxonomy up to date (and in practice they are NOT being maintained). Navboxes for

5161:

I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post,

3812:

I meant consensus about particular phylogenies. In this discussion there appears to be a conflation about the discussion about whether there is consensus about particular inconsistent taxonomies and whether inconsistent taxonomies are "admissible" on wikipedia at all. The other possible conflation is

3480:

This is the phrasing they use: "We assembled the classification according to the principles outlined elsewhere, and we refer the reader to the introductions of both Adl et al. 2005 and 2012 for background information, and to Adl et al. 2007 for a discussion. Briefly, we adopted a hierarchical system

4371:

You realize how many arguments you just made, which you wouldn't necessarily have made if Australopithecus already had e.g. a tribe status? "It's paraphyletic", " It's not really a genus", "It doesn't present a taxonomy" "Hominini sensu strictu is available" "You don't have to show every node" "It's

2173:

In the example of raspberry spur blight there are already several taxa involved. The condition is the result of the pathogenic taxon and an infected taxon. A condition or disease is the product of the interaction of two or more organisms, the cause in the name may be the vector, or its parasite, or

1821:

Looking ahead, the thirtieth birthday of the World Wide Web falls in 2019, and yet the ambition to make webpages routinely readable by machines can still seem an ever-retreating mirage. Wikidata should not only be helping Wikimedia integrate its projects, an ongoing process represented by Structured

262:. Translation: scripting for automation, version control, data set matching and wrangling in the large, are on the agenda also for contemporary library work. Certainly there is some possible common ground here. Time to understand rather more about the motivations that operate in the library sector. 5485:

in Wikidata, I came across these (on the surface) duplication errors. Wikidata does not allow 2 QIDs to possess identical labels AND descriptions, so these have to either get merged OR relabeled in some combination (either QID_1, or QID_2, or both), then have the appropriate descriptions applied. I

5324:

That is the first navbox that I did not hate on sight, I like it in fact—like durian—if I hold my nose; but now I have that banana phone song in my head! The chiropteran navs are redundant to categories, lists, and articles, but are also pov without citations (which the taxo-nav-box does have). The

3949:

Well, I think it has been explained multiple times now; even if the "solution" is a synthesis of older ideas, the synthesis itself is new and needs to be generally accepted. Otherwise, the implementation of it itself is "radical". Per the dictionary definition: "thoroughgoing or extreme, especially

3679:

The ranks largely determine what is displayed. Remove the "classic" ranks and the taxobox classification will be emptied (no family, order, class, phylum, etc). This means changing the ranks in the taxonomy templates will change what is displayed in a large number of articles (thousands if a higher

3448:

In proper English "nameless ranks" can only mean ranks with no name. Their system also "ignores endings of clade names", but that is another feature. That said, the article is poorly written and in some places its hard to decypher what they are trying to say. My reading is that their system doesn't

2415:

Typically empty categories appear randomly about different topics and this happens when 1) a category has only one article and that article gets deleted or 2) recategorization occurs and a new category system replaces an older one or there is renaming going on. It's unusual to have 14 categories on

2407:

I do a lot of work with categories and right now we are seeing many categories involving "invasive species" that are empty. Is there a recategorization going on or deletion of articles involving invasive species? Right now there are 14 invasive categories that have been tagged for deletion as empty

1266:

I'm not in favor of including a Wikispecies template, and when editing a page for other reasons, I usually remove the template. The template is sometimes added willy-nilly without regard for whether Wikispecies actually has an article on the taxon (perhaps a bot could be employed to find and remove

492:

I don't think hybrids are inherently notable. I don't read French, but I gather that this moth hybrid was facilitated by humans raising the insects and isn't something that naturally occurs in the wild? There are tons of human created plant hybrids and they don't all need articles. It's fairly easy

4757:

Against that major disadvantage, the advantages are that is clearly passes the reliable secondary source test, has chapters written by a wide selection of experts, and it provides a combination of being relatively up to date and conservative. The phylogenies in Simpson et al (2017) show polytomies

3975:

It seems like people are responding to two totally unrelated questions (or more likely, I'm not understanding the discussion). Question 1 is "should we depart from Linnaean taxonomy ranks in infoboxes in order to display more precise and evolutionarily relevant taxa?" To that question, I currently

3933:

You haven't answered the question about what is so radical. People seem to be rejecting it as radical without saying which part they consider radical. The Adl et al taxonomic hierarchy is conservative and based on extensive review of the literature over a long period; their supergroups are largely

3204:

This is the comment of Peter Coxhead on my talk page about his view on the status of this synthesis paper "On the other hand, I'm very aware that deep phylogeny remains a fast moving subject, and by the time good secondary articles appear they tend to be out of date. However, the Adl et al. (2018)

218:

GLAM ♥ data — what is a gallery, library, archive or museum without a catalogue? It follows that Wikidata must love librarians. Bibliography supports students and researchers in any topic, but open and machine-readable bibliographic data even more so, outside the silo. Cue the WikiCite initiative,

4415:

Of course, "But it's a chronogenus" was still the missing contortionist argument, which also would not have been made if Australopithecus had already been at the tribe level. And how do you put chrono-XXX in the taxoboxes again? Ironically, historically they were assigned separate genuses because

3731:

Yes, there is a lack of consistency, but this reflects the literature. The best example is probably birds. If Class Aves is demoted, then the orders, superfamilies, even families used by ornithologists would need to be lowered in rank (and their endings changed accordingly). There are no reliable

5181:

Can I request some comments on nav boxes for 'groups' of animals, in general, but especially those that provide a link to every other article in a family, for example, by one taxonomic classification of that group. I already have an opinion, but want to know how others view their presence in our

4628:

Ignoring ranks, others have noted above (and below) that there are other hierarchies. However, the one in question does have the considerable merit of being proposed by multiple authors (unlike Cavalier-Smith's). So if it is taken up by other reliable sources, then in, say, a year's time, we can

1401:

so i'm not liking the title of this article. The IUCN calls this the black-crowned dwarf marmoset which we use as an alternate name. We could go scientific name as title, but may be still under dispute? We can keep as is, but we are not usi g apostrophe at end per manual of style. The current

428:

Notable, but not an article at a glance. It should redirect to … I don't know, turns out to be a good question. Maybe collapse to a disambiguation or redirect to a section of one of the species article, in principle, frustrating that the article doesn't explain the hybridisation between separate

4574:

well, it certainly wasn't clear to me that this is what you were trying to argue above. So can we now agree that is wrong to use the ranks in Adl et al. (2019) because of their effects on taxoboxes throughout many articles, and you won't change the ranks in the relevant taxonomy templates again

3918:

researchers which are not affiliated with them. That is why it is radical, it is not widely accepted consensus, but something proposed by a specific research group. We need to establish that these ideas have gotten wide acceptance before we can do anything other than just mention their ideas in

3898:

What might be radical is changes to the automatic taxonomy system that could result from implementing their rejection of traditional named rank names. This proposal is hardly new as that was part of their 2005 proposal and has long been advocated by others. It would have radical effects on how

3540:

Please specify what you mean by radical then. Just proposing to allow wikipedia to reflect longstanding practice, without editors hawking at every inevitable inconsistency. I have seen many papers where authors acknowledge the inconsistency, and consent to leave it in place. The lesson is that

4643:

Ignoring ranks, there are three different questions remaining - the hierarchy, for which Adl et al may well be as good a synthesis of the current state as knowledge as we can find, their nomenclature (e.g., they use Chloroplastida, where Viridiplantae seems to be the consensus usage), and the

3998:

The problem is not using unranked taxa per se - they are already used in the taxoboxes for flowering plants (there's no consensus ranked classification above the rank of order for flowering plants) and for a variety of fossil groups. The immediate problem was inconsistent use of ranked taxa.

3793:

Up to a point, it is possible to use taxonomy templates to support alternative systems, via skip and variant taxonomy templates, and we currently manage to do this – as I noted above – for dinosaurs and birds. (I have some ideas on how the system could better support alternatives, but that's

1099:

Every time a page is edited (or null edited), all templates/modules/etc. are fully recursed (there is a recursion limit, but it's relatively high) and resolve to their final text, which is actually way messier than what you see in the editor (you can see for yourself by playing around with

3570:

Not proposing a solution. Just proposing to follow the sources, not resolving the inconsistencies. However, wikipedia seems to be at odds with these inconsistencies, as they are consistently flagged and removed, even the ones over which there is consensus over keeping the inconsistencies.

3620:

To avoid misunderstanding: not proposing here to change animal kingdom and plant kingdom. Just proposing keeping the long standing taxon names of the higher up clades, leading to inconsistencies, acknowledging the inconsistencies. Not clear where you think the Plant kingdom should be

230:

In fact there is a broad scope: "Open Knowledge Maps via SPARQL" and the "Sum of All Welsh Literature", identification of research outputs, Library.Link Network and Bibframe 2.0, OSCAR and LUCINDA (who they?), OCLC and Scholia, all these co-exist on the agenda. Certainly more

1068:

Out of interest, how does that propagation work? Is it instantiated once when an article containing an affected box is accessed and a template change is found, and then it sticks for repeat viewings until the underlying template receives the next change (here, null edit)?

3555:

Radical as in new and not widely known or used. Yes, there is inconsistency, this has been known for decades, but any proposed solution is what's radical, until it gains acceptance. And we only implement it when that happens, Knowledge follows sources, it doesn't lead.

2850:

is that, firstly, the term itself needs considerable unpacking, because just being able to read material online is a poor relation of "open"; and secondly, trying to get Creative Commons license information into Wikidata shows up issues with classes of license (such as

3164:

All comments here appear to presume that the taxonomic ranking needs to be "resolved" before it can be committed into wikipedia. However, the scientific literature continues to use these inconsistent ranks regardless. The most prescient examples currently are kingdom

1791: 761: 784:

in every way I can think of, and it's accounting for all that I can throw at it (like different ways to wrap italics around it, the need to be able to insert material, like an infraspecific term, that is not italicized, and so on). Even had to create a new

4758:

where there is doubt, wheras another potential source (Silar 2016) is much bolder at presenting detailed trees. Incidentally, there are a number of Knowledge articles with phylogenies attributed to Silar (2016) that bear little resemblance to them (e.g. in

4505:

and see chapter 20 of amounting to textbook examples. By the way, in this case textbooks may actually be ahead of scientific publications, because I read that in anthropology scientists are especially careful due to the sensitive nature of the subject.

1786:

from the University of Mannheim allows Zotero bibliographies to be exported to Wikidata, by item creation. With an extra feature to add statements, that route could lead to much development of the focus list (P5008) tagging on Wikidata, by WikiProjects.

1402:

english name is a reference to 2 close relatives named Roosmalen, not a single person named Roosmalens. I know I'm getting pretty detailed, but I thought I'd deal with it now, now that I'm here....Do we use Roosmalen's, Roosmalens's, or Roosmalens?....

3181:. These are not recent problems either, which will imminently be resolved. For the record: E.g. Australopithecus/Australopithecus is recognized as paraphyletic since 2001. E.g. Embryophytes/Embryophyceae in green algae since Lewis & McCourt 2004. 4753:

is available online but only the chapter abstracts are free. The latter undermines its goal of providing a "community resource". When I made the suggestion I was under the impression that the introductory chapter by Simpson et al (2017) was freely

3067:

My personal view is that eventually we will have to accept that the traditional classification schemes place many Linnaean ranks far too low down, but that we should not change until multiple reliable secondary sources do so (i.e. we should follow

1286:

However, mobile view doesn't include Wikispecies in the list of interwiki links, and taxonbar isn't displayed in mobile view either. Perhaps consideration of mobile view is sufficient reason to include the template (playing devil's advocate here)?

2265:)". But there are counter examples in stenophagic lepidoptera, in that people sometimes talk about the horse chestnut, rather the horse chestnut moth, etc. But in general the name of the disease is not the same as the name of the causative agent. 4021:

Apologies if I'm wrong, but some comments above suggest that the issue isn't entirely clear to everyone. Suppose the hierarchy has been set up in taxonomy templates. Then suppose it's changed to . Then, since kingdom is a rank always displayed,

3365:? It looks like it results in skipping vasts swaths of (extinct) phylogeny. This is also the tendency in homo, not being put taxonomically in Australopithecus. Just for taxonomic level-naming consistency sake which is not even anything tangible? 2154:

But my point is that the two statements you made are essentially the same. If there is a one to one mapping of disease and causative organism, especially to the point that two articles could not be supported. If the fungus were called

3022:

Adl, Sina M.; Bass, David; Lane, Christopher E.; Lukeš, Julius; Schoch, Conrad L.; Smirnov, Alexey; Agatha, Sabine; Berney, Cedric; Brown, Matthew W. (2019), "Revisions to the Classification, Nomenclature, and Diversity of Eukaryotes",

1760: 1180:

expansion of templates. A particular issue is the presence of a page in an error-tracking category added by a template – viewing the page can show it to be ok, but the cache still has it in the category, until you perform a null edit.

1267:

Wikispecies templates on en.wiki when Wikispecies doesn't have a corresponding article?). There are a fair number of stubs with the template where there isn't enough text to keep the template from extending the article vertically; (

4820:

Ian McDougall; Leakey, Louise N.; Kiarie, Christopher; Patrick N. Gathogo; Brown, Frank H.; Spoor, Fred; Kiarie, Christopher; Leakey, Meave G. (2001). "New hominin genus from eastern Africa shows diverse middle Pliocene lineages".

4166:

So there is no way yet on wikipedia to systematically reflect the inconsistencies pointed out in the literature is what you are basically saying here. There should be no shield to protect wikipedia from the scientific literature.

2102:

article it looked odd to me that the taxobox title was the disease name rather than the organism name. The taxobox is about the organism, not the disease, so this seems a case where the taxobox shouldn't follow the page title.

2802:

stated as "bad data drives out good". Knowledge and now Wikidata have been criticised on related grounds: what if their content, unattributed, is taken to have a higher standing than Wikimedians themselves would grant it? See

3899:

taxoboxes are displayed. There also seems some confusion about the Linnean ranks they indicate in Table 1, which seems to advocate kingdoms Bilateria and Embryophta, but this is not part of their formal proposal in Table 2.

2845:

does do a great job. Placeholders must be detected, and working with Wikidata is a good way to understand how having one statement as data can blind us to replacing it by a more accurate one. An example that is important to

2989:/Archaeplastida, Animalia and Fungi are kingdoms, and if implemented full in taxonomy templates, all articles currently showing a kingdom for these taxa would have changed taxoboxes and many would need changes to the text. 2775: 2774: 2771: 2770: 2200:

and the name of the disease caused by infection of certain plants by this fungus". If this sentence cannot be written clearly and unambiguously, it could be taken as a sign that merging to articles is not such a good idea.

2776: 2243:

The article is on the disease, the taxobox is titled after the organism causing the disease. That seems to be the appropriate combination unless the disease and organism are notably enough for separate articles.

5389:'s comments above, except that I would put it more strongly than "I'm not a fan of them". At best they are useless clutter in organism articles, and I would strongly support their removal in almost all cases. 3139:

Encyclopedias aren't research papers. There's no reason why we shouldn't have some vaguely sensible process, either. A. St-E. relied for his safety on first servicing his plane, then refuelling it, then doing

1247:

It seems to me clear that the answer is "no, we don't" and I strongly favour removing them. (A similar argument applies when a taxonomic database is in the taxonbar and also in the "External links" section.)

2097:

I agree that one article makes more sense than two when the organism and disease are so interrelated. However, I'm not convinced that the disease name is necessarily a common name for the organism. In the

288:, WikiCite 2018 program abstract, Christine Fernsebner Eslao of Harvard Library Information and Technical Services and Michelle Futornick, Linked Data for Production Program Manager at Stanford University 2773: 3513:

scheme of dinosaur taxonomy was proposed a few years ago, and it hasn't yet been implemented in taxoboxes, simply because there is no scientific consensus yet. That should be the general approach here.

2416:

one subject to appear unless it's an intention editing project. So, I thought I'd post here in case anything funny is going on because I hope members of WikiProject Tree of Life would know about this.

3798:

be able to use Adl et al. (2019) complete with ranks for, say, "protists", while using more traditional systems for multicellular organisms, although I haven't yet worked out how this might be set up.

2037:. I know not all diseases are caused by onle a single organism, but not all common names apply to a single species either. Also many diseases are significant enough to need their own article (like 2159:

and the disease were "Raspberry Didymella blight" would that be okay for a single article? Would two stubs be preferable? I'm trying to understand the reasoning, i'm not trying to be annoying. --

1797: 1796: 1793: 1792: 5097:

Simpson, Alastair G.B.; Slamovits, Claudio H.; Archibald, John M. (2017). "Protist Diversity and Eukaryote Phylogeny". In Archibald, John M.; Simpson, Alastair G.B.; Slamovits, Claudio H. (eds.).

3287:

If "follow the literature" means making changes to tens or hundreds of thousands of articles, only for the changes to be reversed or reworked a few months later, then we should resolutely oppose.

1798: 932: 3732:

sources for this that I am aware of, nor any sign that ornithologists are likely to take this route. So we just have to cope with different systems. Hopefully not more than one per WikiProject!

3321:

Not proposing anything like that here. Just proposing to allow wikipedia to reflect longstanding inconsistencies. Two issues are being conflated: inconsistency and reliability of the sources.

1220:

Do we need three links to Wikispecies on each taxon page: lefthand sidebar, taxonbar, and a separate template? Because of the redundancy with the sidebar and taxonbar, I've been removing the

626:

has been feature-expanded to handle all kinds of cases (including their italicization, no italics on the "×", capitalization, spaces that should be non-breaking and/thin, etc.). Examples:

4914:

Ruggiero, Michael A.; Gordon, Dennis P.; Orrell, Thomas M.; Bailly, Nicolas; Bourgoin, Thierry; Brusca, Richard C.; Cavalier-Smith, Thomas; Guiry, Michael D.; Kirk, Paul M. (2015-04-29).

3680:

taxon). This behaviour of the system could be changed if there was consensus, but as things are currently set up, taxon ranks matter. That is why such changes need to be discussed first.

4579:

I don't remember making changes to the ranks in any Eukaryote taxonomy templates. I've changed a few parents, but none based on Adl et al (2019), which I hadn't seen until this weekend.

4150:? Of course it should always be acted on, given that the alternative is masses of taxoboxes with inconsistent ranks, which will certainly puzzle readers and lead to attempts to fix them. 4095:

I agree it does appear to be flagged somewhere. Also in the templates themselves sometimes are reddish flagging shows up. The question then is whether it should always be acted upon.

2455: 140: 392:

a necessary article (given the fact that it's only got two sources it doesn't seem to meet GNG), or should there just be a note in each respective species that they can interbreed? ♠

3866:

authoritative source. We shouldn't jump the gun, nor automatically accept the newest scheme as true (or 'best') simply because it's newest (or in an open-access journal, creating a

943:

recently and since there is a basic template for these types of pages, I think it would be helpful if we had a bit clearer guidelines to distinguish the class categories. Thanks! —

1795: 238:

Wikimedians generally are not aware of the tech background that can be assumed, unless they are close to current training for librarians. A baseline definition is useful here: "

2931: 1905: 353: 3432:

Please bear in mind that "nameless" only appears to refers to the endings of the names, not necessarily completely rankless. The above comments appear to assume ranklessness.

4133: 529:

was to document the information at the articles of each species, then delete the hybrid article as non-notable. I think I might do that, but instead of deletion, redirect to

2325:

Hmmm, but has anyone demonstrated that the term "chimpanzee" doesn't include both the common chimpanzee and the bonobo/pygmy chimpanzee? If not, I see no point in a move.

94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 5158: 4790: 2810:

Knowledge has now turned 18, so should act like as adult, as well as being treated like one. The Web itself turns 30 some time between March and November this year, per

3414:- we should never implement radical new schemes the very moment they are proposed. At best, we should wait years to see if they catch on among other researchers first. 4793:

I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates that might make it easier to deal with part of the issue being discussed here.

2762: 4192:? Sorry, but it's just ridiculous to suggest that. Everyone agrees that all appropriately sourced views must be discussed. Appropriate sourcing is clearly defined in 2639:

There is also the issue of monophyly of Porifera, although last I looked it is considered monophyletic again. Sponges will be appropriate regardles of any changes.

2192:". If we follow the wikipedia conventions on using common names, this really should be written "Raspberry spur blight is caused by the fungus raspberry spur blight ( 4069:

doesn't this type of situation throw errors? As in, when a template is published that has out of order ranks, does it pop up in a cleanup category or something? --

2512: 3649:

you simply can't change the ranks without affecting all the taxonomy templates below the changed ones, and hence all the articles that use those taxonomy templates

2596: 2592: 2547: 2494: 4357:

Also, with fossils, there's the problem of unresolveable early taxa - diverse and distinct group B might be nested in group A, but you can't tell exactly where.

1176:

my experience is that, at least in recent months, the server load is sufficiently high that null edits, rather than just visiting a page, are necessary to force

2855:) standing for the actual license in major repositories. Detailed investigation shows that "everything flows" exacerbates the issue. But Wikidata can solve it. 2772: 2530: 936: 3665:

Please describe "affecting". Specifically, what goes wrong in the wikipedia automatic taxonomy system for an inconsistent taxonomy, other than being flagged?

1633:

I assume someone tried to update the information in a simple way, which left inconsistencies in the taxobox and elsewhere. There is already an article on the

2521: 2503: 2412:) and I see more coming my way. Because some categories are emptied out of process, categories sit in the empty category for 7 days before they are deleted. 1616:(Indian Ocean humpbacked dolphin). The taxonomic notes of the latter say that they have "been recognized as a species since taxonomic revision of the genus 2409: 2974:, but this caused many such templates and article taxoboxes that use them to have inconsistent ranks, so I have reverted the changes, pending discussion. 1876: 5476: 1423:? If it's named after two people named Roosmalen, then Roosmalens' is fine, no? Though I guess it really depends on what current, reliable sources say. 975:, had messed up almost 600 taxonomy templates and corresponding articles by the time I caught up with it. Null edits should fix any that still show up. 2021: 271: 5248:

The alarming thing is that I can not see them, but I see it seems to be spat out as a "zero-width non-breaking space". Thanks for the reality check.

1309:

I'd forgotten about mobile view. The best answer, I think, would be to alter mobile view, so that the taxonbar can be expanded from some small icon.

5535:

Ah, thank you! This is exactly why I didn't venture into this group of items, except only for the obvious cases, of which I guess there are few.

2181:

P.S. I think the same points are already given at the outset, I just fancy I am looking at this from a different angle. 03:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

1794: 1014:

FWIW, I null edited the ~2000 direct transclusions of the 2 above templates, but I know of no easy way to obtain a list of their cascading uses.

940: 47: 17: 4544:

Would I be right in thinking that the problem isn't in using the hierarchy in Adl et al per se, but in assigning Linnaean ranks to their clades?

4351:

Fig. 1 doesn't present a taxonomy. That aside, Hominini sensu strictu is available (as are Hominina sensu lato and Australopithecina sensu lato).

526: 389: 4644:

stability of the data (I have the impression that protist trees haven't stabilised to the degree that say angiosperms or pteridophytes have).

1131:

Does that must mean visitors to a page are served a cache of the rendered page rather than a new version using all the templates and modules?

388:

Hi, possibly a dumb question about hybrids, but are they inherently notable in the same way that valid species are inherently notable? Ie, is

235:

is coming Wikidata's way. That poses the question about the other direction: is more Wikimedia technology advancing on libraries? Good point.

5486:

don't have the time/patience/knowledge to fix all of these accurately nor quickly, so I'm leaving it here for more capable editors to fix!

5113: 5078: 1966: 833:

is Lua-based – the Lua function is used directly by all the automated taxobox templates. Thus {{Taxon italics|Felis silvestris catus}} gives

4047:

Thank you, this is most usefull. Anything else? (Because this particular issue, for this particular rank, appears to be easily addressable)

2887: 2952: 1926: 1749: 661: 642: 374: 5338:

I've noticed the inflation of incoming links by nav boxes before - bit of an irritation if you're trying to disambiguate incoming links.

3647:

Changing the taxon names of the higher up clades based is one thing, although we should discuss it first. Changing the ranks is another;

2484: 1843: 1518: 1965:

A pilot project at WP:Gastropods for systematically identifying and cleaning up unaccepted ("invalid") taxon articles, see discussion:

1826:. It should also be acting as a catalyst to bring scraping in from the cold, with institutional strengths as well as resourceful code. 935:

on clarifying the distinction between stubs and starts for articles about species and other taxa. I looked at the assessment pages for

4502:

Once again conflating the issues of sources and the issues of permissibility of inconsistent taxonomy. And just trying to follow e.g.

2971: 2588: 2261:

It seems to me that following the convention, the sentence would be "Raspberry spur blight is caused by raspberry spur blight fungus (

2217: 2005: 1883: 737: 613: 5204: 3914:

That one author (and his group) has published several papers over many years doesn't create a consensus; it needs to be accepted by

3782:

We should always discuss all alternative classification systems that are appropriately sourced in the text of the relevant articles.

3257:

Just proposing here to follow the literature: Removing ranks just because it is inconsistent is not following the reliable sources.

2923: 2734: 1980: 1897: 1724: 897: 813: 598: 345: 283: 222: 201: 5415:. Also missing the option to generate empty, unnamed groups. Anyway, does wikipedia have any click-through rate about these boxes? 1465:

nothing, just waiting for a few more responses....more sources use Rossmalen (and variations thereof) as a common name however....

2740: 1745: 1730: 1373:

Hmm, yeah, if the Taxonbar is supposed to help replace long External links sections, it should definitely be visible on mobile. —

482: 207: 1411: 2948: 2937: 2600: 1922: 1911: 1567: 1544: 1536: 573: 370: 359: 5211:. TY for the interest so far. I would argue they are a net negative, beyond matters of taste (which is why they are hidden?). 4711:

as a secondary source for Eukaryote phylogeny? The introduction by Simpson et al (2017) has a reasonable consensus phylogeny.

4235:

in the taxoboxes because of the genus in genus situation. Try it, you will fail! This is almost literally a textbook example.

3713:- If Adl is not to be our source of higher taxonomy for eukaryotes, what is? There seems a lack of consistency in general. -- 5003: 3077: 2927: 2017: 1901: 1005: 349: 4503: 4233: 583:(on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up 5200: 4594:

Peter might, like I did a couple of times, have been confused by you having an, at a glance, similar username to Jmv2009.

2314: 2009: 1593: 1081: 4132:

as well as showing the offending ranks shaded in red when you view a twxonomy template, it puts the taxonomy template in

4026:

that uses an automated taxobox – likely tens of thousands of articles about subspecies, species, genera, families, etc. (

1886:, the latest ContentMine grant application to the Wikimedia Foundation, is in its community review stage until January 2. 1046:

thanks, that was very helpful – a couple of different errors were hidden in the error-tracking categories by these ones.

5208: 3184:

Rugierro et al, 2015 had Embryophyta as a superphylum. I guess the main argument here is that we need multiple sources.

538: 397: 4232:

Protecting from literature may sound ridiculous, but is it though?: e.g., once again, I can't put the tree of fig.1 of

4978: 4328:

sensu lato as a broader group would be the parent, say, if considered a tribe. There must be some taxonomies treating

2876: 2013: 1814:

community, and growing networks around other approaches that can integrate datasets into Wikidata, such as the use of

1621: 1395: 1271: 883: 4551:

Yes, that is what I have been trying to argue above. The hierarchy and use of named ranks are two separate qustions.

4354:

However, you don't have to name every node in a cladogram, and you don't have to show every named node in a taxobox.

4030:

has 173,545 transclusions) – will have a taxobox containing two kingdoms. There's absolutely no consensus for this!

4027: 2966:

Adl et al. (2019) proposes a revised classication scheme for eukaryotes, updating their 2012 system, among others.

1852:

Write a Zotero translator and document process for creating new Zotero translator and getting it live in production

868:. It won't handle "Felis silvestris catus × Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis", but could be extended to do so. 743: 38: 1823: 5330: 5249: 5212: 5183: 3126: 2357: 2175: 2027:

I know this may be considered a bend by some, but if you really boil it down, the name of a disease, for example

456: 430: 5616: 5601: 5578: 5569:

I think the fungus examples are duplicates which should be merged. I will try to look into it sooner or later.

5553: 5526: 5504: 5454: 5424: 5398: 5380: 5347: 5333: 5319: 5291: 5276: 5252: 5243: 5215: 5186: 5171: 4802: 4772: 4742: 4721: 4700: 4683: 4653: 4638: 4617: 4603: 4589: 4561: 4515: 4497: 4425: 4410: 4381: 4366: 4346: 4244: 4227: 4209: 4176: 4161: 4104: 4078: 4056: 4039: 4008: 3989: 3959: 3944: 3928: 3909: 3883: 3858:: we should not make radical, drastic changes on the basis of bleeding edge science. Knowledge shouldn't be the 3848: 3822: 3807: 3770: 3741: 3722: 3690: 3674: 3660: 3642: 3609: 3580: 3565: 3550: 3523: 3490: 3459: 3441: 3423: 3404: 3374: 3330: 3296: 3266: 3240: 3214: 3193: 3153: 3129: 3112: 3089: 3001: 2956: 2761:

for you, they may be able to answer the question "is the Pope Catholic?" Possibly by asking for disambiguation (

2682: 2649: 2633: 2469: 2449: 2430: 2394: 2360: 2334: 2319: 2274: 2254: 2238: 2211: 2178: 2168: 2149: 2127: 2113: 2091: 1994: 1930: 1806:

There is also a large-scale encyclopedic dimension here. The construction of Zotero translators is one facet of

1672: 1655: 1598: 1530: 1502: 1474: 1460: 1446: 1432: 1384: 1366: 1328: 1296: 1257: 1241: 1190: 1164: 1141: 1126: 1086: 1055: 1032: 984: 954: 902: 877: 818: 603: 541: 520: 506: 487: 459: 447: 433: 423: 400: 378: 152: 5583:

The more TOL eyeballs the better - they might not all be true duplicates, but they all need something fixed.

3874:

violation by lending one hypothesis undue weight. Let's at least wait until the scheme is more widely adopted.

3785:

Taxoboxes cannot properly show alternative systems, so they should use the established consensus for the group.

2225: 2055:

The disease article, organism article, or both are stubs and likely to remain that way, or one is non-existant.

525:

Hi, sorry about my lack of response over the past couple days. I appreciate the input - one suggestion over at

276:, book chapter by Mairelys Lemus-Rojas, metadata librarian and Lydia Pintscher, Wikidata Product Manager, from 1555:) throughout. The usual online sources do not appear to follow the subspecies interpretation. - Then there is 1319:

do you know why the taxonbar is suppressed in mobile view? Is it part of the general policy on nav templates?

2895: 5612: 5574: 5522: 5394: 5167: 4798: 4738: 4671:

The other source of protist (and in this case prokaryote as well) classifications is Cavalier-Smith (et al).

4634: 4613: 4493: 4407: 4205: 4157: 4035: 3803: 3737: 3656: 3292: 3236: 3149: 3108: 3085: 2997: 2909: 2864: 2390: 2145: 1526: 1324: 1253: 1186: 1101: 1051: 980: 873: 534: 393: 5230: 4488:

be, whereas all that matters is what the consensus is in reliable secondary sources. No more here from me.

882:

Nifty. It actually seemed to work okay when I fed it such a hybrid name, though I suggested some tweaks at

4688:

Is it the monophyly or its contents? Archaeoplastida could be expanded to include Cryptista and Picozoa.

3073: 2827: 2382: 1973: 1940: 1451:

And would anything be wrong with just moving the article to the IUCN name (black-crowned dwarf marmoset)?

827: 653: 634: 117: 5408: 5192: 4870: 2350:

discussion is contingent on the outcome, the title of chimpazzz … erm, that other article on the species

5343: 4696: 4679: 4649: 4362: 4223: 4136:, which is monitored, generally daily, by a number of editors, and the offending template rapidly fixed. 4004: 3879: 2804: 2270: 2099: 2028: 1634: 1556: 894: 810: 595: 4281:

This gets complicated, but solutions might posssible. First there are some semantic issues to consider.

5038: 3449:

use formal ranks and the ranks they give are for comparative purposes and not part of their proposal.

2798:

are now familiar, but the unannounced circulation of information raises other issues. One of those is

5592: 5544: 5495: 5450: 5365: 4927: 3788:

Taxoboxes should not show inconsistent Linnaean ranks, like two kingdoms, or a family above an order.

3141: 3080:= Order Ornithischia, with no Class but Superclass Tetrapoda, but it becomes increasingly difficult. 2673: 2624: 1668: 1470: 1442: 1407: 1357: 1224: 1210: 1155: 1117: 1023: 993: 478: 4748: 3950:

as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company".

2294:

Some strongly held opinions are currently being expressed about whether to rename the genus article

718:

names (I don't know how many are notable or are mentioned in our text, but it's at least easy now):

299: 5376: 5196: 5162:

but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system.

4197: 2577: 2569: 2551: 2063: 2033: 1292: 788: 502: 2755:

take much of their data from Knowledge, one way or another. So as well as getting Spotify to play

1870: 406:

I would say no. In fact, it seems such examples are usually covered in overview articles, such as

259: 125: 5608: 5570: 5518: 5442: 5390: 5315: 5272: 5163: 5159:

Knowledge talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates

4852: 4794: 4791:

Knowledge talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates

4734: 4630: 4609: 4599: 4489: 4201: 4153: 4074: 4031: 3985: 3977: 3955: 3924: 3799: 3733: 3718: 3652: 3561: 3519: 3419: 3288: 3232: 3170: 3145: 3104: 3081: 2993: 2757: 2386: 2330: 2234: 2164: 2141: 2123: 2087: 1625: 1522: 1335: 1320: 1249: 1182: 1047: 1001: 976: 869: 796: 516: 443: 419: 148: 2188:

As Peter Coxhead pointed out, the article begins "Raspberry spur blight is caused by the fungus

1630:), which also seems another species carved out of the Indo-Pacific species, has its own article. 1230:

templates, usually as part of other edits, but sometimes other editors replace them. Thoughts? —

3231:) must not use: an encyclopedia is at most a description of science (etc), not science itself. 2873:, with "fake news", Jimmy Wales, Wikidata and more (health warning for those with tune allergy) 1519:

Knowledge talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 13#Criteria for display of a taxon in a taxobox

5420: 5287: 5239: 5110: 5075: 5011: 4961: 4945: 4897: 4890: 4845: 4838: 4768: 4717: 4585: 4557: 4511: 4421: 4377: 4342: 4240: 4172: 4100: 4052: 3940: 3905: 3818: 3766: 3686: 3670: 3638: 3605: 3576: 3546: 3486: 3455: 3437: 3400: 3370: 3326: 3262: 3210: 3189: 3100: 3049: 2752: 2645: 2516: 2464: 2445: 2437: 2375: 2310: 2250: 2207: 2109: 2073: 1989: 1651: 1589: 1498: 1456: 1428: 1379: 1236: 1137: 1077: 990:

I am so sorry. it was a simple honest mistake. Sarsath3 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2018 (CTZ)

949: 860:. It also handles botanical connecting forms, thus {{Taxon italics|Acer series Arguta}} gives 619:

Something I meant to do a long time ago but keep not getting around to has finally been done:

239: 108: 2908:, Magnus Manske blogpost, 24 January 2019, on Wikidata tech support for an image donation by 2807:

for the usual quip about "law and sausages", and why one shouldn't watch them in the making.

1104:). If server load is low enough, this can be done by just refreshing/navigating to the page. 312: 5339: 5102: 5067: 4952: 4935: 4882: 4830: 4692: 4675: 4645: 4358: 4219: 4000: 3875: 3178: 3040: 3032: 2581: 2573: 2558: 2498: 2266: 2132:

I think the point is that the article begins "Raspberry spur blight is caused by the fungus

1547:? I'm confused as to why the article talks about two subspecies but styles them as species ( 889: 805: 711: 590: 407: 4481:

we're not going to get anywhere, because you are defending your personal view as to what a

5588: 5564: 5540: 5512: 5491: 5446: 5304: 5024: 5004:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/0217/0435/files/Life_Sciences_NW_Sep_2018_P2_QP.pdf

3919:

articles. If a consensus hasn't emerged since 2005, I don't see why we have to rush here.

3862:

proponent and popularizer of new taxonomic schemes or clades that are absent in virtually

3841: 3761:

phylogenies? Let's have a discussion about consensus later to avoid conflation of issues.

2815: 2811: 2669: 2620: 2534: 2352: 2342: 2299: 1664: 1645:, but it needs someone with some knowledge of dolphins to separate the relevant material. 1579: 1466: 1438: 1403: 1353: 1314: 1151: 1113: 1041: 1019: 779: 623: 609: 473: 411: 251: 232: 2052:

A disease is caused by a single organism and the organism only causes that single disease

1848: 1605: 1581:. I have no idea at that point whether that cleared things some up or made them worse. -- 1566:

To muddy the waters further, someone has just switched the primary species name (box) in

1563:), linked nowhere from that page, and treated as a "variety" in that standalone article. 574:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds

4931: 4395: 3125:

So interesting, I'm looking forward to the part that references Saint‐Exupéry, A. 1943.

2826:, Wikimedians still have a role in its critique. But not just with the teenage skill of 2799: 2436:

Ongoing post-Caftaric clean-up to reduce over-categorization. See additional discussion

2300:

Talk:Chimpanzee#Misleading!_Either_make_this_a_"chimp_&_bonobo"_page,_or_disentangle

1810:

that has a strong community and open source basis. In that it resembles the less formal

1660: 1611: 5596: 5548: 5499: 5438: 5386: 5372: 5296:

I'm more of a durian fan, myself. In any event, I don't have objections with navboxes

4956: 4915: 3871: 3626: 3510: 3358: 3044: 2677: 2628: 2587:

all of the categories starting with 'Sponges' be made to start with 'Poriferans' (e.g.

2525: 2507: 2456:

Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 17#Category:Invasive plant species

1361: 1288: 1159: 1121: 1027: 498: 5517:

I've commented on the page you've wikilinked above, but these are not all duplicates.

5233:: it has a couple of invisible characters. You can see them as red dots in edit mode. 4674:

With regards to stability, the monophyly of Archaeoplastida remains an open question.

1776: 472:– if there is significant coverage in RS and you want to write an article, go for it. 5311: 5281:

Navboxes are like marmite. Some people can't get enough of them and other hate them.

5268: 4595: 4406:. The monophyly of the genus may not be a useful concept in talking about descent. - 4127: 4070: 3981: 3951: 3920: 3714: 3630: 3557: 3515: 3415: 2788: 2326: 2230: 2160: 2119: 2083: 1967:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Cleanup template for Invalid (unaccepted) taxon

1753: 1340:

yes, navbars (full-width) in general are suppressed in mobile view. Partial-width nav

997: 972: 749: 715: 584: 512: 469: 452: 439: 415: 144: 1767:

Besides the handiness of Zotero's warehousing of personal citation collections, the

429:

genera, and the only link I can find is to archived offers to sell from the trade.

5416: 5283: 5235: 4855: 4764: 4728: 4713: 4581: 4569: 4553: 4507: 4476: 4417: 4373: 4338: 4236: 4193: 4183: 4168: 4141: 4096: 4048: 3936: 3901: 3814: 3762: 3682: 3666: 3634: 3601: 3572: 3542: 3482: 3451: 3433: 3396: 3366: 3322: 3258: 3228: 3206: 3185: 3069: 2967: 2784: 2641: 2459: 2441: 2304: 2246: 2203: 2105: 1984: 1807: 1647: 1583: 1494: 1452: 1424: 1374: 1231: 1171: 1133: 1071: 944: 706:(forcibly de-italicized, to deal with infobox parameters that are pre-italicizing). 5106: 5039:"GEOL 204 The Fossil Record: The Scatterlings of Africa: The Origins of Humanity" 4940: 1857: 1345: 1277:

should be used in these case if a templated Wikispecies link is provided at all).

5133: 5062:

Archibald, John M.; Simpson, Alastair G.B.; Slamovits, Claudio H., eds. (2017).

3622: 3166: 2981:. In particular, this system places the rank of kingdom much higher up, so that 2847: 2842: 2795: 2780: 331: 318: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

5134:"Protistes Eucaryotes: Origine, Evolution et Biologie des Microbes Eucaryotes" 5071: 3867: 3362: 2838: 2819: 2295: 2288: 1815: 494: 291: 247: 4948: 4893: 4841: 2977:

If there is consensus to use the ranks in the Adl et al. (2019) system, then

2298:

to "Chimpanzee (genus)" or "Pan (genus)" (or leave as is). Some comments at

767:

Are there any other pre-existing templates that need to be in this category?

5199:(display title "Extant species of family Molossidae") and the configurable 4964: 4900: 4886: 4848: 3509:

Take my comment as a blanket statement. We were also cautious when the new

3052: 2870: 2458:, started this for one of the bigger categories (currently 622 articles). — 2302:

would be appreciated; there seem to be good arguments either way. Cheers --

1663:

is also combined in 2 species (albeit disputed), but is in better shape....

2903: 2718: 2564:

So I would like to propose that this situation be standardized by either:

1708: 1620:

in 2014 (Committee on Taxonomy 2014, Jefferson and Rosenbaum 2014)". The

219:

which was meeting in conference this week, in the Bay Area of California.

185: 5412: 4759: 2490:

have a corresponding one-word category parent at their top. For example,

2421: 2042: 580: 141:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 November 27#Template:Virusbox

1865: 1780: 1759: 2834: 2024:, but I thought this would be a goob place to centralize a discussion. 1835: 511:

At best, create an article about moth hybrids and dump them all there.

3036: 1772: 4834: 3072:). It's just about possible to create parallel systems, as we do for 2611:

since it's the easiest and the least disruptive, but I can help with

1741: 1513:

Small changes to the criteria for the display of a taxon in a taxobox

255: 2900:, Martin Poulter blogpost, 24 January 2019, Bodleian Digital Library 2059:

The general guideline should be to merge the articles and include a

1811: 327: 306: 4215: 2970:

began to implement some of this in taxonomy templates used by the

2852: 2767: 1789: 1758: 1437:

Knowledge has been staying away from the apostrophe at the end....

221: 1543:

Could someone with an overview have a look at what's going on at

455:, that would work, I should have read your comment more closely. 5482: 4629:

revisit the question of whether to use its names and hierarchy.

3174: 2823: 2136:" not "Raspberry spur blight is the English name of the fungus 438:

Perhaps cover it in a section of a higher level taxon article.

5207:, where I just notice more chiropteran navigation as regional 4979:"Cowen: History of Life, 5th Edition - Student Companion Site" 2038: 1955: 1483:

Knowledge has been staying away from the apostrophe at the end

921: 770:

Is there any other such thing you wish you had a template for?

562: 243: 103:

Template for deletion discussion for Virusbox 2018 November 27

25: 2962:

Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes

2787:

service in voice search showdown with the Google rival on an

2048:

So to sum up, in instances where the following are all true:

4691:

read the above as "Archaeoplastida as currently understood"

3541:

despite the inconsistency, there can be consensus about it.

4733:

is it available online? Researchgate only has an abstract.

3006:(Multiple Wikiprojects under this one have been notified.) 2381:, and would like some views on the questions I've posed at 1752:. It is also an active user community, and has broad-based 4190:

shield to protect wikipedia from the scientific literature

2723: 1775:, at work behind the VisualEditor. Metadata from Wikidata 1713: 190: 1521:. The changes should affect very few taxoboxes (if any). 533:, as that seems to have been the focus of the research. ♠ 278:

Leveraging Knowledge: Connecting Communities of Knowledge

3794:

something to discuss separately.) If it were agreed, we

1641:) so it makes sense that this article gets converted to 1108:

a page forces this though, regardless of server load.

4916:"A Higher Level Classification of All Living Organisms" 4218:

describes 4 different concepts of the kingdom Plantae.

2726:. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. 2031:, is just a common name for the organism, in this case 1716:. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. 968: 964: 579:

This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by

193:. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page. 133: 129: 121: 113: 4324:

inappropriate for the parent in the taxobox. However,

2889:

Olivia Colman reveals struggle with Knowledge over age

2371:

I have been working on adding infra-specific ranks to

852:; {{Taxon italics|Citrus {{hybrid}} sinensis}} gives 3144:. Wouldn't have worked too well in any other order. 2932:

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery

2454:

See also later on in my talk page. Also just added:

1906:

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery

1866:

Home page on GitHub for Zotero translator Javascript

354:

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery

4134:

Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks

2833:There is more to beating Gresham than exposing the 1840:, Zotero blogpost by Dan Stillman, 19 October 2018. 273:

Wikidata and Libraries: Facilitating Open Knowledge

2892:, Naomi Gordon, 28 January 2019, harpersbazaar.com 2000:RfC: Are disease names common names for organisms? 1877:m:Structured Data on Commons/Newsletter/2018-12-07 285:LD4P and WikiCite: Opportunities for collaboration 4024:every single article about any taxon in Kingdom A 1744:is free software for reference management by the 1348:), but with most formatting elements removed. 226:Wikidata training for librarians at WikiCite 2018 5150:Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates 2513:Category:Bivalves by year of formal description 4869:Lewis, Louise A.; McCourt, Richard M. (2004). 2737:. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. 2597:Category:Sponges by year of formal description 2593:Category:Sponges described in the 19th century 2561:redirect has stood uncontested for ~10 years. 2548:Category:Sponges by year of formal description 2495:Category:Animals by year of formal description 2118:Can you explain why more? Where’s the line?-- 1727:. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. 552:Capitalization of names of standardized breeds 204:. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer. 5481:While adding missing descriptions to various 5203:. The array of templates may be contained by 3777:Let's have a discussion about consensus later 2979:radical changes will be needed in many places 2751:Recently Jimmy Wales has made the point that 2531:Category:Plants by year of formal description 2343:Talk:Chimpanzee#Requested_move_6_January_2019 330:, where you can see SPARQL visualisations of 8: 4608:Yes, absolutely right. My abject apologies! 4483:modern, phylogenetically determined taxonomy 2918:If you wish to receive no further issues of 2522:Category:Fungi by year of formal description 2504:Category:Birds by year of formal description 1892:If you wish to receive no further issues of 1779:into Zotero; and in the other direction the 1485:? Where do you see Knowledge refer to it as 844:; {{Taxon italics|Citrus × sinensis}} gives 340:If you wish to receive no further issues of 321:by Wikidata founder Denny Vrandečić (Google) 4871:"Green algae and the origin of land plants" 2878:Why Knowledge’s Medical Content Is Superior 2410:Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion 5477:User:Tom.Reding/Wikidata conflicting items 3123:, then development, then implementation"? 2747:Everything flows (and certainly data does) 2385:from anyone interested in virus taxonomy. 2383:Template talk:Virusbox#Ranks below species 2341:This is a now a formalised requested move 1961:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 1578:and shuffled a number of redirects around 991: 927:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 568:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 5092: 5090: 4955: 4939: 3043: 2822:Web technology gaining authority, contra 2805:Wikiquote on a misattribution to Bismarck 2480:All organism groups under the purview of 2022:Knowledge:WikiProject Veterinary medicine 5127: 5125: 2476:Category:Sponges vs. Category:Poriferans 933:this discussion at WikiProject Arthopods 740:has been created for these, along with: 4812: 4575:without prior discussion and consensus? 3014: 2557:which has stood for ~12 years, and the 2543:The only outlier to this structure is: 2367:Adding infra-specific ranks to Virusbox 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Tree of Life 5607:case needs to be examined separately. 5020: 5009: 4482: 4300:isn't part of the parapheyletic genus 4189: 4147: 3973:Oppose? Maybe I'm not understanding... 3776: 1610:(Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin) and 1490: 1486: 1482: 1420: 527:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera 143:, if anyone would like to chime in. -- 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5101:(2nd ed.). Springer, Cham. pp. 1–21. 4288:is the evolutionary group from which 4188:where has anyone said that we want a 2881:, Stephen Harrison, 28 January 2019, 837:; {{Taxon italics|×Amacrinum}} gives 754:), which we've had for several years. 587:in draft proposal state for 6 years. 7: 3779:. I believe the consensus is clear: 1750:Knowledge:Citing sources with Zotero 911:Stub vs. Start class for taxon pages 662:Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis 643:Prionailurus bengalensis bengalensis 326:Account creation is now open on the 2926:. Alternatively, to opt out of all 1900:. Alternatively, to opt out of all 1844:Category:Wikipedians who use Zotero 960:Large number of taxoboxes messed up 682:''Citrus'' {{hybrid|sinensis|lc=y}} 390:Graellsia isabellae × Actias selene 348:. Alternatively, to opt out of all 4312:but not in a sister relationship. 3025:Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 2589:Category:Sponges described in 1864 2006:Knowledge:WikiProject Microbiology 1854:, long Phabricator thread 2015–17. 738:Category:Scientific name templates 614:Category:Scientific name templates 24: 5205:Category:Mammal species templates 2735:Knowledge:Facto Post mailing list 1981:Category:Taxa that may be invalid 1936:Cleaning up unaccepted taxa with 1725:Knowledge:Facto Post mailing list 1604:The IUCN recognises two species: 1146:That is server load dependent. 202:Knowledge:Facto Post mailing list 5191:Some examples I notice recently 4316:as a genus is not the parent of 2708: 2655: 1950: 1862:, documentation from zotero.org. 1746:Center for History and New Media 1698: 1493:? That would just be wrong, no? 916: 557: 175: 29: 5471:~700 conflicting Wikidata items 5407:I only edit a couple (animals, 2922:, please remove your name from 2615:if there's consensus for it. 2601:Category:Sponges of New Zealand 1896:, please remove your name from 1568:Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin 1545:Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin 1537:Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphin 344:, please remove your name from 3775:I'm not sure what you mean by 3357:How are we doing it for order 2867:for 18th birthday celebrations 2404:Hi, WikiProject Tree of Life, 2018:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 776:I've beaten on the overhauled 1: 5617:21:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 5602:21:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 5579:20:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC) 5554:16:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 5527:15:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 5505:15:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 5201:Template:Vespertilioninae nav 4386:The difficulty of separating 3754:Again, how do we incorporate 3142:his heroic bit of solo flying 2082:So what do you all think? -- 2010:Knowledge:WikiProject Viruses 1931:19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC) 1695:– Issue 19 – 27 December 2018 1684:– Issue 19 – 27 December 2018 1673:18:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC) 1656:13:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 1599:10:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC) 1531:15:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC) 1503:00:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC) 1475:23:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1461:21:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1447:23:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1433:21:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1412:23:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1394: 1385:14:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1367:16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1329:07:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1297:04:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 1258:22:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1242:20:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1191:17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1165:16:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1142:15:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1127:14:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1087:14:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1056:17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 1033:14:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 985:08:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC) 955:20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC) 903:08:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC) 887: 803: 588: 542:22:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 521:20:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 507:20:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 488:17:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 460:15:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 448:14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 434:14:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 424:11:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 401:07:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 379:11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC) 250:". Compare and contrast with 172:– Issue 18 – 30 November 2018 161:– Issue 18 – 30 November 2018 153:20:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC) 5455:23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5425:20:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5399:17:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5381:16:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5348:16:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5334:16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5320:15:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5292:13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5277:12:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5253:20:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5244:15:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5216:14:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5209:Template:Madagascar bats nav 5187:07:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5172:15:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 5107:10.1007/978-3-319-28149-0_45 4941:10.1371/journal.pone.0119248 4803:15:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 4773:13:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 4743:21:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 4722:17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4701:19:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4684:11:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4654:19:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4639:14:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4618:15:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4604:15:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4590:15:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4562:12:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4516:18:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 4498:21:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 4426:17:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 4411:15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 4404:: the transition that wasn't 4382:02:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 4367:22:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4347:20:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4296:is paraphyletic. That means 4245:17:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4228:10:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4210:09:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4177:05:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 4162:09:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4105:06:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4079:04:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 4057:23:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 4040:20:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 4009:16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC) 3990:00:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 3980:to start this discussion?). 3960:14:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 3945:12:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 3929:12:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 3910:12:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 3884:21:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3849:20:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3823:04:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 3808:20:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3771:19:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3742:18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3723:17:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3691:20:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3675:18:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3661:18:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3643:15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3610:15:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3581:16:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3566:15:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3551:14:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3524:14:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3491:14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3460:14:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3442:13:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3424:13:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3405:13:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3375:12:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3331:12:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3297:12:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3267:12:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3241:12:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3215:11:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3194:11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3154:11:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3130:10:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3113:09:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3090:09:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 3002:09:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC) 2957:10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 2705:– Issue 20 – 31 January 2019 2694:– Issue 20 – 31 January 2019 2683:16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC) 2650:15:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC) 2634:15:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC) 2470:17:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC) 2450:02:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC) 2431:02:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC) 2395:12:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC) 2229:is just a redirect to it. -- 2223:? I just added a taxobox. 878:09:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC) 819:05:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC) 722:{{chimera|Crataegomespilus}} 714:has been created, to format 604:22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC) 314:Toward an Abstract Knowledge 304:, blogpost 3 November 2018, 293:Shell Lessons for Librarians 5229:Reason for your redlink in 5066:(2nd ed.). Springer, Cham. 4304:. The parent includes both 2361:07:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC) 2335:09:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2320:09:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2275:23:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC) 2255:20:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC) 2239:20:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC) 2212:08:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC) 2179:03:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC) 2169:02:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC) 2150:22:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2128:22:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2114:07:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2092:03:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC) 2014:Knowledge:WikiProject Fungi 1995:15:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 1837:Zotero Comes to Google Docs 1622:Australian humpback dolphin 1344:contents are shown though ( 1216:templates on taxon articles 884:Template talk:Taxon italics 793:meta-template (opposite of 493:to hybridize many plants by 5635: 5267:Can you give an example?-- 4875:American Journal of Botany 4028:Template:Taxonomy/Animalia 4017:Clarification of the issue 2949:MediaWiki message delivery 2938:MediaWiki message delivery 2485:Category described in year 1948: 1923:MediaWiki message delivery 1912:MediaWiki message delivery 1396:Roosmalens' dwarf marmoset 914: 744:Template:Trade designation 555: 371:MediaWiki message delivery 360:MediaWiki message delivery 296:, Library Carpentry lesson 5072:10.1007/978-3-319-28149-0 3870:), which can result in a 702:, of course still gives: 301:At-risk content on Flickr 5132:Silar, Philippe (2016), 5099:Handbook of the Protists 5064:Handbook of the Protists 4750:Handbook of the Protists 4709:Handbook of the Protists 2972:automated taxobox system 2936:Newsletter delivered by 2753:computer home assistants 2226:Rickettsia aeschlimannii 2219:Rickettsia aeschlimannii 2157:Didymella raspberryensis 1910:Newsletter delivered by 495:treating with colchicine 358:Newsletter delivered by 2934:to your user talk page. 2910:Cleveland Museum of Art 2897:Making Wikidata visible 2865:Knowledge:Knowledge Day 1908:to your user talk page. 1102:Special:ExpandTemplates 698:The original use, just 356:to your user talk page. 4887:10.3732/ajb.91.10.1535 2818:by Google exemplifies 2791: 2741:Back numbers are here. 2004:This probably affects 1803: 1764: 1731:Back numbers are here. 835:Felis silvestris catus 801:) to make it all work. 654:Felis silvestris catus 635:Felis silvestris catus 227: 208:Back numbers are here. 139:is being discussed at 5138:HAL Archives-ouvertes 4787:Possible alternatives 2779: 2100:Raspberry spur blight 2029:Raspberry spur blight 1801: 1762: 1635:Chinese white dolphin 1557:Chinese white dolphin 764:(changed font style). 668:{{hybrid|Amarcrinum}} 225: 42:of past discussions. 4707:Any thoughts on the 2928:massmessage mailings 2346:Pan (genus) Another 2345:: chimpanzee -: --> 1902:massmessage mailings 1822:Data on Commons and 1737:Learning from Zotero 1481:What do you mean by 649:{{hybrid|]|x}} '']'' 350:massmessage mailings 5409:Template/eukaryotes 5231:Template:Molossidae 5197:Template:Molossidae 5193:Template:Chiroptera 4932:2015PLoSO..1019248R 3121:under consideration 2828:detecting phoniness 2578:Category:Poriferans 2570:Category:Poriferans 2552:Category:Poriferans 2263:Didymella applanata 2198:Didymella applanata 2194:Didymella applanata 2190:Didymella applanata 2138:Didymella applanata 2134:Didymella applanata 2034:Didymella applanata 1421:per manual of style 468:When in doubt, use 5361:higher ranks (e.g 4336:as a higher rank. 4148:easily addressable 3171:Phragmoplastophyta 3076:= Class Aves, and 2992:Comments, please. 2792: 2758:Frosty the Snowman 2572:be transferred to 2216:Ok, so what about 1871:Example translator 1859:Zotero Translators 1812:mix'n'match import 1804: 1765: 1272:Wikispecies-inline 328:ScienceSource wiki 228: 5385:I endorse all of 5115:978-3-319-28147-6 5080:978-3-319-28147-6 5019:Missing or empty 4881:(10): 1535–1556. 4829:(6827): 433–440. 4668:Further comments 3037:10.1111/jeu.12691 2946: 2945: 2941: 2783:device using the 2777: 2517:Category:Bivalves 2400:Invasive species? 2318: 1920: 1919: 1915: 1873:, for Wikisource. 1802:Zotero demo video 1799: 1769:Zotero translator 1597: 1419:What do you mean 1085: 1009: 996:comment added by 486: 368: 367: 363: 109:Template:Virusbox 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5626: 5600: 5568: 5552: 5516: 5503: 5370: 5364: 5309: 5303: 5290: 5242: 5177:use of nav boxes 5142: 5141: 5129: 5120: 5119: 5094: 5085: 5084: 5059: 5053: 5052: 5050: 5049: 5043:www.geol.umd.edu 5035: 5029: 5028: 5022: 5017: 5015: 5007: 5000: 4994: 4993: 4991: 4990: 4975: 4969: 4968: 4959: 4943: 4911: 4905: 4904: 4866: 4860: 4859: 4835:10.1038/35068500 4817: 4771: 4732: 4720: 4588: 4573: 4560: 4480: 4398:Australopithecus 4394:is discussed in 4392:Australopithecus 4345: 4330:Australopithecus 4326:Australopithecus 4322:Australopithecus 4314:Australopithecus 4306:Australopithecus 4302:Australopithecus 4294:Australopithecus 4286:Australopithecus 4187: 4145: 4131: 3943: 3908: 3846: 3689: 3458: 3403: 3179:Australopithecus 3132: 3056: 3055: 3047: 3019: 2924:our mailing list 2916: 2794:Headlines about 2778: 2729:To subscribe to 2721: 2719:Charles Matthews 2712: 2711: 2706: 2698: 2697: 2681: 2663: 2659: 2658: 2648: 2632: 2582:Category:Sponges 2574:Category:Sponges 2568:the contents of 2559:Category:Sponges 2499:Category:Animals 2489: 2483: 2468: 2429: 2408:categories (see 2380: 2374: 2308: 2307: 2253: 2210: 2112: 2078: 2072: 2068: 2062: 1993: 1978: 1972: 1962: 1954: 1953: 1945: 1939: 1898:our mailing list 1890: 1800: 1754:language support 1719:To subscribe to 1711: 1709:Charles Matthews 1702: 1701: 1696: 1688: 1687: 1654: 1627:Sousa sahulensis 1587: 1586: 1383: 1365: 1339: 1318: 1276: 1270: 1240: 1229: 1223: 1215: 1209: 1175: 1163: 1140: 1125: 1075: 1074: 1045: 1031: 953: 928: 920: 919: 901: 865: 857: 849: 841: 832: 826: 817: 800: 792: 783: 763: 759: 758:{{tdes|Foo Bar}} 753: 732: 731: 730:Crataegomespilus 728: 723: 712:Template:Chimera 705: 701: 695: 694: 691: 683: 678: 677: 674: 669: 659: 656: 650: 645: 640: 637: 631: 602: 569: 561: 560: 476: 408:Gamebird hybrids 346:our mailing list 338: 309: 196:To subscribe to 188: 186:Charles Matthews 179: 178: 173: 165: 164: 138: 137: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5634: 5633: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5587: 5562: 5539: 5510: 5490: 5473: 5368: 5362: 5331:cygnis insignis 5307: 5301: 5282: 5250:cygnis insignis 5234: 5213:cygnis insignis 5184:cygnis insignis 5179: 5152: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5131: 5130: 5123: 5116: 5096: 5095: 5088: 5081: 5061: 5060: 5056: 5047: 5045: 5037: 5036: 5032: 5018: 5008: 5002: 5001: 4997: 4988: 4986: 4977: 4976: 4972: 4926:(4): e0119248. 4913: 4912: 4908: 4868: 4867: 4863: 4819: 4818: 4814: 4763: 4726: 4712: 4580: 4567: 4552: 4474: 4337: 4320:, making Genus 4181: 4139: 4125: 4019: 3935: 3900: 3842: 3681: 3450: 3412:Waaaay too soon 3395: 3127:cygnis insignis 3124: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3021: 3020: 3016: 2964: 2942: 2871:WMUK video page 2816:Knowledge Graph 2812:Tim Berners-Lee 2768: 2743: 2738: 2727: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2701: 2696: 2668: 2656: 2654: 2640: 2619: 2535:Category:Plants 2487: 2481: 2478: 2462: 2420: 2402: 2378: 2372: 2369: 2358:cygnis insignis 2353:Pan troglodytes 2303: 2292: 2245: 2202: 2176:cygnis insignis 2104: 2076: 2070: 2066: 2060: 2002: 1987: 1976: 1970: 1969:, new template 1963: 1960: 1958: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1937: 1916: 1887: 1790: 1777:can be imported 1733: 1728: 1717: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1691: 1686: 1646: 1607:Sousa chinensis 1582: 1561:Sousa chinensis 1549:Sousa chinensis 1541: 1515: 1491:Roosmalens' ... 1399: 1377: 1352: 1333: 1312: 1274: 1268: 1234: 1227: 1221: 1218: 1213: 1207: 1169: 1150: 1132: 1112: 1070: 1039: 1018: 962: 947: 929: 926: 924: 917: 913: 863: 855: 847: 839: 830: 824: 794: 786: 777: 757: 747: 729: 726: 725: 721: 703: 699: 692: 689: 688: 681: 675: 672: 671: 667: 657: 652: 648: 641: 638: 633: 629: 624:Template:Hybrid 617: 610:Template:Hybrid 570: 567: 565: 558: 554: 457:cygnis insignis 431:cygnis insignis 412:Panthera hybrid 386: 364: 335: 305: 233:library science 210: 205: 194: 184: 180: 176: 168: 163: 111: 107: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5632: 5630: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5604: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5530: 5529: 5472: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5457: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5327:ring ring ring 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5178: 5175: 5151: 5148: 5144: 5143: 5121: 5114: 5086: 5079: 5054: 5030: 4995: 4970: 4906: 4861: 4811: 4810: 4806: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4755: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4672: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4487: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4384: 4355: 4352: 4349: 4282: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4212: 4151: 4137: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4025: 4018: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 3993: 3992: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3895: 3894: 3887: 3886: 3876:--Animalparty! 3868:cognitive bias 3852: 3851: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3797: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3786: 3783: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3726: 3725: 3706: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3650: 3627:Archaeplastida 3613: 3612: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3511:Ornithoscelida 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3427: 3426: 3408: 3407: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3359:Apterygiformes 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3182: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3134: 3133: 3116: 3115: 3093: 3092: 3078:ornithischians 3058: 3057: 3013: 3012: 3008: 2984: 2980: 2963: 2960: 2944: 2943: 2935: 2930:, you may add 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2901: 2893: 2885: 2874: 2868: 2861: 2860: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2739: 2728: 2716:The Editor is 2715: 2714: 2707: 2695: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2605: 2604: 2585: 2580:redirected to 2555: 2554: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2528: 2526:Category:Fungi 2519: 2510: 2508:Category:Birds 2501: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2452: 2401: 2398: 2368: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2338: 2337: 2291: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2001: 1998: 1949: 1946: 1934: 1918: 1917: 1909: 1904:, you may add 1889: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1868: 1863: 1855: 1846: 1841: 1832: 1831: 1773:citoid service 1771:underlies the 1739: 1738: 1734: 1729: 1718: 1706:The Editor is 1705: 1704: 1697: 1685: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1631: 1540: 1534: 1514: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1487:Roosmalens ... 1479: 1478: 1477: 1435: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1310: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1261: 1260: 1217: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1179: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1011: 1010: 961: 958: 915: 912: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 802: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 765: 755: 735: 734: 733: 709: 708: 707: 696: 679: 665: 646: 630:{{hybrid|]|]}} 616: 607: 556: 553: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 490: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 426: 385: 382: 366: 365: 357: 352:, you may add 337: 336: 325: 324: 323: 322: 310: 297: 289: 281: 268: 267: 216: 215: 214:WikiCite issue 211: 206: 195: 183:The Editor is 182: 181: 174: 162: 156: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5631: 5618: 5614: 5610: 5609:Strobilomyces 5605: 5603: 5598: 5594: 5590: 5586: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5576: 5572: 5571:Strobilomyces 5566: 5561: 5560: 5555: 5550: 5546: 5542: 5538: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5531: 5528: 5524: 5520: 5519:Peter coxhead 5514: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5489: 5484: 5479: 5478: 5470: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5444: 5443:Peter coxhead 5440: 5436: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5414: 5410: 5406: 5405: 5400: 5396: 5392: 5391:Peter coxhead 5388: 5384: 5383: 5382: 5378: 5374: 5367: 5359: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5332: 5328: 5323: 5322: 5321: 5317: 5313: 5306: 5299: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5289: 5285: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5274: 5270: 5266: 5254: 5251: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5232: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5214: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5198: 5194: 5189: 5188: 5185: 5176: 5174: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5164:Peter coxhead 5160: 5156: 5149: 5139: 5135: 5128: 5126: 5122: 5117: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5093: 5091: 5087: 5082: 5077: 5073: 5069: 5065: 5058: 5055: 5044: 5040: 5034: 5031: 5026: 5013: 5005: 4999: 4996: 4984: 4983:bcs.wiley.com 4980: 4974: 4971: 4966: 4963: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4947: 4942: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4917: 4910: 4907: 4902: 4899: 4895: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4872: 4865: 4862: 4857: 4854: 4850: 4847: 4843: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4824: 4816: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4795:Peter coxhead 4792: 4788: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4761: 4756: 4752: 4751: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4735:Peter coxhead 4730: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4719: 4715: 4710: 4706: 4702: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4689: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4670: 4669: 4667: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4631:Peter coxhead 4627: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4610:Peter coxhead 4607: 4606: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4587: 4583: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4571: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4559: 4555: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4543: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4504: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4495: 4491: 4490:Peter coxhead 4485: 4484: 4478: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4409: 4408:Donald Albury 4405: 4403: 4399: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4364: 4360: 4356: 4353: 4350: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4335: 4332:inclusive of 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4214:For example, 4213: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4202:Peter coxhead 4199: 4195: 4191: 4185: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4154:Peter coxhead 4152: 4149: 4143: 4138: 4135: 4129: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4032:Peter coxhead 4029: 4023: 4016: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3991: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3978:Peter coxhead 3974: 3971: 3970: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3917: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3889: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3854: 3853: 3850: 3847: 3845: 3839: 3836: 3835: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3800:Peter coxhead 3795: 3792: 3787: 3784: 3781: 3780: 3778: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3734:Peter coxhead 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3712: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3692: 3688: 3684: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3653:Peter coxhead 3648: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631:Viridiplantae 3628: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3596: 3595: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3512: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3410: 3409: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289:Chiswick Chap 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3268: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233:Chiswick Chap 3230: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146:Chiswick Chap 3143: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3128: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3105:Chiswick Chap 3102: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3082:Peter coxhead 3079: 3075: 3071: 3066: 3063: 3062: 3054: 3051: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3004: 3003: 2999: 2995: 2994:Peter coxhead 2990: 2988: 2982: 2978: 2975: 2973: 2969: 2961: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2940: 2939: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2919: 2911: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2899: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2872: 2869: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2854: 2849: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2831: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2806: 2801: 2800:Gresham's law 2797: 2796:data breaches 2790: 2789:Android phone 2786: 2782: 2766: 2764: 2760: 2759: 2754: 2746: 2745: 2742: 2736: 2732: 2725: 2720: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2693: 2690: 2684: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2662: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2562: 2560: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2486: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2426: 2425: 2417: 2413: 2411: 2405: 2399: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2387:Peter coxhead 2384: 2377: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2339: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2316: 2312: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2290: 2286: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2222: 2220: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2180: 2177: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2142:Peter coxhead 2139: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2080: 2075: 2065: 2054: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2035: 2030: 2025: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 1999: 1997: 1996: 1991: 1986: 1982: 1975: 1974:Cleanup taxon 1968: 1957: 1942: 1941:cleanup taxon 1935: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1914: 1913: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1893: 1885: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1850: 1847: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1825: 1819: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1761: 1757: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1726: 1722: 1715: 1710: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1683: 1680: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661:Bryde's whale 1659: 1658: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1628: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1613:Sousa plumbea 1609: 1608: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1585: 1580: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1553:Sousa plumbea 1550: 1546: 1539:- subspecies? 1538: 1535: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1523:Peter coxhead 1520: 1512: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1397: 1386: 1381: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1336:Peter coxhead 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321:Peter coxhead 1316: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1273: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1250:Peter coxhead 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1238: 1233: 1226: 1212: 1206: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1183:Peter coxhead 1177: 1173: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1073: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1048:Peter coxhead 1043: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 989: 988: 987: 986: 982: 978: 977:Peter coxhead 974: 970: 966: 959: 957: 956: 951: 946: 942: 938: 934: 923: 910: 904: 899: 896: 893: 892: 885: 881: 880: 879: 875: 871: 870:Peter coxhead 867: 859: 851: 843: 836: 829: 828:Taxon italics 823: 822: 821: 820: 815: 812: 809: 808: 798: 790: 781: 769: 766: 756: 751: 745: 742: 741: 739: 736: 720: 719: 717: 716:graft chimera 713: 710: 697: 687: 680: 666: 664: 663: 655: 647: 644: 636: 628: 627: 625: 622: 621: 620: 615: 611: 608: 606: 605: 600: 597: 594: 593: 586: 585:MOS:ORGANISMS 582: 577: 575: 564: 551: 543: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509: 508: 504: 500: 496: 491: 489: 484: 480: 475: 471: 467: 461: 458: 454: 451: 450: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 432: 427: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 404: 403: 402: 399: 395: 391: 383: 381: 380: 376: 372: 362: 361: 355: 351: 347: 341: 333: 329: 320: 316: 315: 311: 308: 303: 302: 298: 295: 294: 290: 287: 286: 282: 279: 275: 274: 270: 269: 265: 264: 263: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 236: 234: 224: 220: 213: 212: 209: 203: 199: 192: 187: 171: 167: 166: 160: 157: 155: 154: 150: 146: 142: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 110: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5584: 5536: 5487: 5480: 5474: 5326: 5297: 5190: 5180: 5155:Input sought 5154: 5153: 5137: 5098: 5063: 5057: 5046:. Retrieved 5042: 5033: 4998: 4987:. Retrieved 4982: 4973: 4923: 4919: 4909: 4878: 4874: 4864: 4826: 4822: 4815: 4807: 4786: 4785: 4749: 4747:Yes and no. 4708: 4566: 4401: 4397: 4391: 4387: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4292:arose, then 4289: 4285: 4198:WP:RSPRIMARY 4196:, including 4020: 3972: 3915: 3890: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3843: 3837: 3759:inconsistent 3758: 3755: 3710: 3705: 3597: 3411: 3391: 3120: 3096: 3064: 3031:(1): 4–119, 3028: 3024: 3017: 3009: 3005: 2991: 2986: 2976: 2965: 2947: 2921: 2917: 2904: 2896: 2888: 2882: 2877: 2832: 2809: 2793: 2785:Amazon Alexa 2756: 2750: 2730: 2702: 2691: 2665: 2660: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2606: 2563: 2556: 2542: 2479: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2406: 2403: 2370: 2351: 2347: 2293: 2262: 2224: 2218: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2156: 2137: 2133: 2081: 2058: 2047: 2032: 2026: 2003: 1964: 1921: 1895: 1891: 1858: 1851: 1836: 1820: 1808:Web scraping 1805: 1781: 1768: 1766: 1740: 1720: 1692: 1681: 1642: 1639:S. chinensis 1638: 1626: 1617: 1612: 1606: 1575: 1571: 1565: 1560: 1552: 1548: 1542: 1516: 1400: 1349: 1341: 1219: 1147: 1109: 1105: 1015: 992:— Preceding 963: 930: 890: 861: 853: 845: 838: 834: 806: 775: 685: 660: 618: 591: 578: 571: 531:G. isabellae 530: 387: 369: 343: 339: 313: 300: 292: 284: 277: 272: 237: 229: 217: 197: 169: 158: 106: 75: 43: 37: 5366:Lepidoptera 5340:Lavateraguy 4693:Lavateraguy 4676:Lavateraguy 4646:Lavateraguy 4359:Lavateraguy 4220:Lavateraguy 4001:Lavateraguy 3864:every other 3844:Captain Eek 3623:Embryophyta 3167:Embryophyta 2985:of Plantae 2848:open access 2820:Heraclitean 2781:Amazon Echo 2724:ContentMine 2267:Lavateraguy 1884:Diversitech 1763:Zotero logo 1714:ContentMine 1517:Please see 1225:Wikispecies 1211:Wikispecies 931:Please see 891:SMcCandlish 807:SMcCandlish 592:SMcCandlish 572:Please see 332:text mining 319:white paper 307:Andrew Gray 260:mix'n'match 191:ContentMine 36:This is an 5589:Tom.Reding 5565:Tom.Reding 5541:Tom.Reding 5513:Tom.Reding 5492:Tom.Reding 5447:Pvmoutside 5182:articles. 5048:2019-02-07 4989:2019-01-12 4808:References 4754:available. 4146:how is it 3363:Saurischia 3173:and genus 3101:WP:PRIMARY 3010:References 2920:Facto Post 2839:urban myth 2731:Facto Post 2703:Facto Post 2692:Facto Post 2670:Tom.Reding 2621:Tom.Reding 2296:Chimpanzee 2289:Chimpanzee 2064:speciesbox 1894:Facto Post 1816:OpenRefine 1721:Facto Post 1693:Facto Post 1682:Facto Post 1665:Pvmoutside 1643:S. plumbea 1467:Pvmoutside 1439:Pvmoutside 1404:Pvmoutside 1354:Tom.Reding 1315:Tom.Reding 1152:Tom.Reding 1114:Tom.Reding 1042:Tom.Reding 1020:Tom.Reding 971:, both by 789:yesitalics 700:{{hybrid}} 676:Amarcrinum 474:ErikHaugen 342:Facto Post 248:OpenRefine 198:Facto Post 170:Facto Post 159:Facto Post 95:Archive 50 87:Archive 45 82:Archive 44 76:Archive 43 70:Archive 42 65:Archive 41 60:Archive 40 5439:Plantdrew 5387:Plantdrew 5373:Plantdrew 4985:. p. 20/5 4949:1932-6203 4894:1537-2197 4842:1476-4687 4284:If genus 3756:consensus 3361:in order 3177:in genus 3169:in class 2905:Inventory 2814:. If the 2607:I prefer 2287:Renaming 2221:infection 1572:chinensis 1289:Plantdrew 965:This edit 842:Amacrinum 797:noitalics 499:Plantdrew 317:, recent 252:pywikibot 5445:said.... 5413:cnidaria 5012:cite web 4965:25923521 4920:PLOS ONE 4901:21652308 4849:11260704 4760:Hacrobia 4596:FunkMonk 4128:NessieVL 3982:Ajpolino 3952:FunkMonk 3921:FunkMonk 3891:Question 3860:de facto 3856:Too soon 3838:Too soon 3711:Question 3598:Too soon 3558:FunkMonk 3516:FunkMonk 3416:FunkMonk 3097:Too soon 3065:Too soon 3053:30257078 2841:, where 2603:, etc.). 2419:Thanks. 2376:Virusbox 2348:separate 2327:FunkMonk 2315:contribs 2074:taxonbar 2043:HIV/AIDS 1594:contribs 1082:contribs 1006:contribs 998:Sarsath3 994:unsigned 973:Sarsath3 969:this one 941:WPPLANTS 858:sinensis 850:sinensis 693:sinensis 581:MOS:LIFE 513:FunkMonk 483:contribs 453:FunkMonk 440:FunkMonk 416:FunkMonk 384:Hybrids? 5417:Jmv2009 5284:Jts1882 5236:Jts1882 5140:: 1–462 5021:|title= 4957:4418965 4928:Bibcode 4856:4409453 4765:Jts1882 4729:Jts1882 4714:Jts1882 4582:Jts1882 4570:Jts1882 4554:Jts1882 4508:Jmv2009 4477:Jmv2009 4418:Jmv2009 4374:Jmv2009 4339:Jts1882 4237:Jmv2009 4184:Jmv2009 4169:Jmv2009 4142:Jmv2009 4097:Jmv2009 4049:Jmv2009 3937:Jts1882 3902:Jts1882 3872:WP:NPOV 3815:Jmv2009 3763:Jmv2009 3683:Jts1882 3667:Jmv2009 3635:Jmv2009 3602:Loopy30 3573:Jmv2009 3543:Jmv2009 3483:Jmv2009 3452:Jts1882 3434:Jmv2009 3397:Jts1882 3392:Comment 3367:Jmv2009 3323:Jmv2009 3259:Jmv2009 3207:Jmv2009 3186:Jmv2009 3045:6492006 2968:Jmv2009 2835:factoid 2642:Jts1882 2460:Hyperik 2442:Loopy30 2305:Elmidae 2247:Jts1882 2204:Jts1882 2106:Jts1882 1985:Hyperik 1849:T115158 1824:lexemes 1648:Jts1882 1584:Elmidae 1576:plumbea 1495:Umimmak 1453:Loopy30 1425:Umimmak 1375:Hyperik 1346:example 1232:Hyperik 1172:Jts1882 1134:Jts1882 1106:Editing 1072:Elmidae 945:Hyperik 854:Citrus 846:Citrus 762:Foo Bar 760:gives: 724:gives: 684:gives: 670:gives: 651:gives: 632:gives: 122:history 39:archive 5312:Nessie 5305:banana 5298:per se 5269:Nessie 4823:Nature 4486:should 4071:Nessie 3715:Nessie 2763:Coptic 2733:go to 2722:, for 2576:, and 2231:Nessie 2161:Nessie 2120:Nessie 2084:Nessie 2020:, and 1979:, and 1782:zotkat 1748:: see 1742:Zotero 1723:go to 1712:, for 866:Arguta 780:hybrid 686:Citrus 539:(talk) 470:WP:GNG 398:(talk) 280:(2018) 256:GitHub 200:go to 189:, for 145:Nessie 5483:biota 5437:what 4853:S2CID 4396:From 4390:from 4216:plant 4194:WP:RS 3916:other 3796:might 3229:WP:OR 3074:birds 3070:WP:RS 2883:Slate 2859:Links 2853:CC-BY 1830:Links 1618:Sousa 1570:from 862:Acer 266:Links 130:watch 126:links 16:< 5613:talk 5597:dgaf 5593:talk 5575:talk 5549:dgaf 5545:talk 5523:talk 5500:dgaf 5496:talk 5451:talk 5441:and 5421:talk 5395:talk 5377:talk 5344:talk 5316:talk 5310:. -- 5288:talk 5273:talk 5240:talk 5168:talk 5111:ISBN 5076:ISBN 5025:help 4962:PMID 4946:ISSN 4898:PMID 4891:ISSN 4846:PMID 4839:ISSN 4799:talk 4769:talk 4739:talk 4718:talk 4697:talk 4680:talk 4650:talk 4635:talk 4614:talk 4600:talk 4586:talk 4558:talk 4512:talk 4494:talk 4422:talk 4402:Homo 4388:Homo 4378:talk 4363:talk 4343:talk 4334:Homo 4318:Homo 4310:Homo 4308:and 4298:Homo 4290:Homo 4241:talk 4224:talk 4206:talk 4173:talk 4158:talk 4101:talk 4075:talk 4053:talk 4036:talk 4005:talk 3986:talk 3956:talk 3941:talk 3925:talk 3906:talk 3880:talk 3819:talk 3804:talk 3767:talk 3738:talk 3719:talk 3687:talk 3671:talk 3657:talk 3639:talk 3606:talk 3577:talk 3562:talk 3547:talk 3520:talk 3487:talk 3456:talk 3438:talk 3420:talk 3401:talk 3371:talk 3327:talk 3293:talk 3263:talk 3237:talk 3211:talk 3190:talk 3175:Homo 3150:talk 3109:talk 3099:per 3086:talk 3050:PMID 2998:talk 2987:s.l. 2983:none 2953:talk 2843:WP:V 2837:and 2824:GIGO 2765:?). 2678:dgaf 2674:talk 2664:. 2661:Done 2646:talk 2629:dgaf 2625:talk 2584:, or 2539:etc. 2465:talk 2446:talk 2438:here 2391:talk 2331:talk 2311:talk 2271:talk 2251:talk 2235:talk 2208:talk 2165:talk 2146:talk 2124:talk 2110:talk 2088:talk 2069:and 2041:and 1990:talk 1927:talk 1784:tool 1669:talk 1652:talk 1590:talk 1527:talk 1499:talk 1489:not 1471:talk 1457:talk 1443:talk 1429:talk 1408:talk 1380:talk 1362:dgaf 1358:talk 1325:talk 1293:talk 1254:talk 1237:talk 1187:talk 1178:full 1160:dgaf 1156:talk 1138:talk 1122:dgaf 1118:talk 1078:talk 1052:talk 1028:dgaf 1024:talk 1002:talk 981:talk 967:and 950:talk 939:and 874:talk 864:ser. 750:tdes 612:and 517:talk 503:talk 479:talk 444:talk 420:talk 375:talk 258:and 246:and 240:bash 149:talk 134:logs 118:talk 114:edit 5157:At 5103:doi 5068:doi 4953:PMC 4936:doi 4883:doi 4831:doi 4827:410 4789:At 4400:to 3629:or 3625:or 3041:PMC 3033:doi 2140:". 2039:HIV 1956:FYI 1818:. 1574:to 1342:box 937:TOL 922:FYI 900:😼 816:😼 601:😼 563:FYI 535:PMC 410:or 394:PMC 244:git 5615:) 5577:) 5525:) 5475:@ 5453:) 5423:) 5397:) 5379:) 5369:}} 5363:{{ 5346:) 5329:… 5318:) 5308:}} 5302:{{ 5275:) 5195:, 5170:) 5136:, 5124:^ 5109:. 5089:^ 5074:. 5041:. 5016:: 5014:}} 5010:{{ 4981:. 4960:. 4951:. 4944:. 4934:. 4924:10 4922:. 4918:. 4896:. 4889:. 4879:91 4877:. 4873:. 4851:. 4844:. 4837:. 4825:. 4801:) 4762:). 4741:) 4699:) 4682:) 4652:) 4637:) 4616:) 4602:) 4514:) 4496:) 4424:) 4380:) 4365:) 4243:) 4226:) 4208:) 4175:) 4160:) 4103:) 4077:) 4055:) 4038:) 4007:) 3988:) 3958:) 3927:) 3882:) 3821:) 3806:) 3769:) 3740:) 3721:) 3673:) 3659:) 3651:. 3641:) 3633:) 3608:) 3579:) 3564:) 3549:) 3522:) 3489:) 3440:) 3422:) 3373:) 3329:) 3295:) 3265:) 3239:) 3213:) 3192:) 3152:) 3111:) 3088:) 3048:, 3039:, 3029:66 3027:, 3000:) 2955:) 2830:. 2613:#2 2609:#1 2599:, 2595:, 2591:, 2550:→ 2533:→ 2524:→ 2515:→ 2506:→ 2497:→ 2488:}} 2482:{{ 2448:) 2440:. 2427:iz 2393:) 2379:}} 2373:{{ 2356:. 2333:) 2313:· 2273:) 2237:) 2167:) 2148:) 2126:) 2090:) 2079:. 2077:}} 2071:{{ 2067:}} 2061:{{ 2016:, 2012:, 2008:, 1977:}} 1971:{{ 1959:– 1944:}} 1938:{{ 1929:) 1756:. 1671:) 1592:· 1551:, 1529:) 1501:) 1473:) 1459:) 1445:) 1431:) 1410:) 1327:) 1295:) 1275:}} 1269:{{ 1256:) 1228:}} 1222:{{ 1214:}} 1208:{{ 1189:) 1080:· 1069:-- 1054:) 1008:) 1004:• 983:) 925:– 888:— 886:. 876:) 831:}} 825:{{ 804:— 799:}} 795:{{ 791:}} 787:{{ 782:}} 778:{{ 752:}} 748:{{ 589:— 576:. 566:– 537:♠ 519:) 505:) 481:| 446:) 422:) 414:. 396:♠ 377:) 254:, 242:, 151:) 132:| 128:| 124:| 120:| 116:| 91:→ 5611:( 5599:) 5595:⋅ 5591:( 5585:~ 5573:( 5567:: 5563:@ 5551:) 5547:⋅ 5543:( 5537:~ 5521:( 5515:: 5511:@ 5502:) 5498:⋅ 5494:( 5488:~ 5449:( 5419:( 5393:( 5375:( 5342:( 5314:( 5286:| 5271:( 5238:| 5166:( 5118:. 5105:: 5083:. 5070:: 5051:. 5027:) 5023:( 5006:. 4992:. 4967:. 4938:: 4930:: 4903:. 4885:: 4858:. 4833:: 4797:( 4767:| 4737:( 4731:: 4727:@ 4716:| 4695:( 4678:( 4648:( 4633:( 4612:( 4598:( 4584:| 4572:: 4568:@ 4556:| 4510:( 4492:( 4479:: 4475:@ 4420:( 4376:( 4361:( 4341:| 4239:( 4222:( 4204:( 4186:: 4182:@ 4171:( 4156:( 4144:: 4140:@ 4130:: 4126:@ 4099:( 4073:( 4051:( 4034:( 4003:( 3984:( 3954:( 3939:| 3923:( 3904:| 3878:( 3817:( 3802:( 3765:( 3736:( 3717:( 3685:| 3669:( 3655:( 3637:( 3621:( 3604:( 3575:( 3560:( 3545:( 3518:( 3485:( 3454:| 3436:( 3418:( 3399:| 3369:( 3325:( 3291:( 3261:( 3235:( 3209:( 3188:( 3148:( 3119:" 3107:( 3084:( 3035:: 2996:( 2951:( 2680:) 2676:⋅ 2672:( 2666:~ 2644:| 2631:) 2627:⋅ 2623:( 2617:~ 2467:⌟ 2463:⌜ 2444:( 2424:L 2389:( 2329:( 2317:) 2309:( 2269:( 2249:| 2233:( 2206:| 2163:( 2144:( 2122:( 2108:| 2086:( 1992:⌟ 1988:⌜ 1983:— 1925:( 1667:( 1650:| 1637:( 1624:( 1596:) 1588:( 1559:( 1525:( 1497:( 1469:( 1455:( 1441:( 1427:( 1406:( 1382:⌟ 1378:⌜ 1364:) 1360:⋅ 1356:( 1350:~ 1338:: 1334:@ 1323:( 1317:: 1313:@ 1291:( 1252:( 1239:⌟ 1235:⌜ 1185:( 1174:: 1170:@ 1162:) 1158:⋅ 1154:( 1148:~ 1136:| 1124:) 1120:⋅ 1116:( 1110:~ 1084:) 1076:( 1050:( 1044:: 1040:@ 1030:) 1026:⋅ 1022:( 1016:~ 1000:( 979:( 952:⌟ 948:⌜ 898:¢ 895:☏ 872:( 856:× 848:× 840:× 814:¢ 811:☏ 746:( 727:+ 704:× 690:× 673:× 658:× 639:× 599:¢ 596:☏ 515:( 501:( 485:) 477:( 442:( 418:( 373:( 334:. 147:( 136:) 112:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 43 - Knowledge

Index