Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main Page references[edit]

  • Becerra, A.; Delaye, L.; Islas, S.; Lazcano, A. 2007: The very early stages of biological evolution and the nature of the last common ancestor of the three major cell domains. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 38: 361-379.
  • Cavalier-Smith, T. 1998: A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biological reviews, 73: 203-266. Abstract
  • Cavalier-Smith, T. 2004: Only six kingdoms of life. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B), 271: 1251–1262. DOI 10.1098/rspb.2004.2705 PDF
  • Knox, E.B. 1998: The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics. Biological journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1-49. Abstract


Simplicity, please!?[edit]

When I went to school (I'm 52 yo), living things were either plants or animals. Now there appears to be several additional classifications.

I am having difficulty understanding the similarities and differences between the various top-level classifications. This is partially because - the information is scattered in several articles - the information is presented with a lot of detail which makes it difficult to get an initial, simple understanding before delving into detail and - the fact that humans usually can compare only two or three facts at the same time.

Can someone please write an article which communicates the similarities and differences between these top-level classifications.

Or, if the article exists, make it easier to find, such as a prevalent link to it on the Wikispecies Main page?


This is a good point! We should certainly make a History of Taxonomic Classification page to deal with this issue! --Dmb 11:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added an image to that page. Edits welcome! --Dmb 12:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is it? Ventifax 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If I am allowed to make a suggestion, it would be much easier and quicker to understand where and what a species exactly is (in relation to other species), if the complete name of a species were given in the format:


For example:

Lion of Cats of Felines of Meat-eaters of Mammals of Spined creatures of Animals [of Living organisms]

Leo Felis Felidae Carnivora Mammal Chordate Animalia

Such a custom would make it easy to compare two different species, by finding the first spot where the "family names" of the two differ from each other. Otherwise it is quite impossible for the complete dummy (like me) to compare "Felis leo" and "Musca domestica". What do these names tell? Next to nothing, because the complete family name is missing, so I cannot grasp where or what these two creatures exactly are, and to what extent they are related to each other.

- John Joe Mittler, Finland -

Very interesting point. I agree. -- 21:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more conventional approach in the English-speaking world is to start with Kingdom & end with Species.
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Carnivora Felidae Panthera leo;
Animalia Chordata Mammalia Primates Hominidae Homo sapiens; etc.
Or once it was. Of course, you get the cladisticists involved & it all goes different. ;) Ventifax 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that is not how species are classified today. I should know. I'm forced to take biology classes using an out-of-date book :)--Junebuggy 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding the quote on the main page,

"WikiSpecies is free. Because life is public domain!"

it's worth noting that GFDL is not the same thing as public domain. A discussion about the licensing that will be used here really needs to take place before the content is uploaded. Angela 21:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice slogan, I like it. But I think it's preferable the content being under GFDL, though taxonomic data are public domain. Because this is one of wikimedia projects. Of course PD data are still available as PD data. e-Goat 22:23, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wikinews is public domain. 00:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Wikinews is cc-by. Take it FWIW from someone not involved in this project, but I would like to see something like Wikispecies be explicitly released into the public domain by its creators. At first blush, the GFDL does not seem appropriate for this project. Wikispecies:Copyrights is just hanging there rather ambiguously a year after it was created... 12:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Life is public domain" is disputable, given that (new) life forms have been successfully copyrighted, unfortunately.

How about "Life should remain public domain"?

Shouldn't it be "WikiSpecies is free because life is public domain!"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you shouldn't have a period there as "because life is public domain" is a subordinate clause. 06:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "WikiSpecies is free because life is public domain!" grammatically better. Other ways of phrasing it might be "WikiSpecies is free because life is free!" or "WikiSpecies is free because life is for everybody!", thus avoiding any ambiguity. Alisdair37 21:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duplicating effort?[edit]

Has anyone talked to the editors at the Wikibooks Field Guide and Dichotomous Key projects? It seems like those books and this wiki somewhat overlap in their scope. Gentgeen 00:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In fact is overlapping with wikipedia itself.

glosowanie (PL)![edit]

Uwaga: rozpoczelo sie glosowanie na polska nazwe projektu, zapraszam na - kocio 00:40, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other languages[edit]

Why were the links to other language versions of the main page removed? I understand that Wikispecies is monolingual, but the main page itself can have different language versions at least to inform the users of it. Ausir 13:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me for changing the declaration of monolinguality on the main page, but I couldn't find the current thread of that discussion, and such a declaration seems to me both counter-productive and offensive... I started a new discussionon the Village Pump. Sj 23:59, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In "Wikispecies in other languages" "Polska" should be changed to "Polski" (in Polish, "Polish language" is "jezyk polski" not "jezyk polska")

Para cuando la Wikiespecies en español?-- 00:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a german wikispecies, too?[edit]

It is intended to be multi-lingual. But just like the Wikimedia Commons, the majority of the community can speak English. When we have more traffic, we will start creating policy and discussion pages in their native languages. But for now, we got Hauptseite for German. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Witkionaries absorption of Wikispecies[edit]

One solution for a multilingual Wikispecies would be to import Wikispecies in all Wiktionaries, we currently have this debate on fr.wikt: all Wiktionaries really need the whole species for languages, including their hypernyms trees in their categories. JackPotte 18:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventory of UK Plant Species[edit]

Info at NVC, Inventory here [1] .

I think the first page should have some links to articles about taxonomy and the system used in wikispecies


Dont' you think the Main Page layout is a bit boring? I know this is trivial but it is, as some other wikis have pointed out, the first page that visitors see and the extremely linear layout is really a turn-off. Maybe we could move the various sections into colour coded columns like the other wikis do, so as to make it more aesthetically appealing? Just a thought.

Oh, and the arrangement of the current headers are quite baffling.
  • Why is Welcome so far down?
  • Why is the main page interlanguage links the first thing you see? (I think you could move it further down, otherwise, reduce the font size). And the Albanian interlanguage seems to be broken.

It's not just boring, it's ugly and user-unfriendly. -- 23:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

North American Mammals Family Trees - Smithsonian web resource[edit]

A useful web site for family trees of North American Mamals Dennis (talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)[[]] 15:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Kelly and All Species Foundation[edit]

Did anyone here already think about getting people from the Please remove this Asian advertising link!
All Species Foundation (founded by Wired mastermind Kevin Kelly) to jump on the bandwagon? And what about collaboration with the foundation, anyway? Their goal is pretty much the same: "[...] the complete inventory of all species of life on Earth within the next 25 years – a human generation", but they started a little bit earlier (see history) and could add some valuable experience and knowledge. [p3k]

Thought they went bust quite a while ago, much noise about little. But if you feel like they would be interested in WikiSpecies, go ahead and get in touch with them. Carl


Isn't the word "Domain" rather more elegant than "Superregnum"?

Maybe, but Superregnum is in Latin.

But no one uses the term Superregnum (I've never heard of it). Working in microbiology, we just refer to the two domains of prokaryotes.

"Superkingdom" could be, and has been, used for names like Opisthokonta (animals, choanoflagellates, fungi), Heterokonta (brown, yellow, siliceous and tons more "algae"), Alveolata (ciliates, dinoflagellates, Apicomplexa and a few more), and "Domain" could stay at Eukary(ot)a, Archaea and Bacteria. -- But IMNSHO Linnaean ranks are nothing but a burden anyway, and a heavy one at that. If we do as I "suggest" above, what rank could we give to names like Chromalveolata? "Subdomain"? We'd run out of ranks VERY soon. If we use ranks, we have to make arbitrary choices on which names to use and which ones to deliberately ignore.
Besides, doesn't Wikispecies have just the same goals as the Tree of Life? Sure, it'll have a page for each species much sooner, it's currently not so much concerned with phylogeny (though... phylogeny exists in nature, classification does not), and it doesn't have the extremely restrictive standard that only people who are (inside their respective ivory towers) famous experts are allowed to write, but everything else except the copyright is the same. I wonder if a merger is appropriate. I mean... the main page of Wikispecies could just be a link to the TOL, and the individual species pages of Wikispecies could have links to the smallest available TOL pages. Only those taxon-navigation pages would still be necessary in Wikispecies that don't yet exist in the TOL.
David Marjanović (david.marjanovic at, the "PhyloCode insider" who wrote in the section below; Feb. 17, 2005, 00:38 CET)

The Latin rank above regnum is imperium, or empire. Traditionally there were two, Prokaryota and Eukaryota. When Woese caled his three groups domains instead, I don't know if he suggested a Latin equivalent, but it would probably be something like dominium. As for the rest, you're assuming wikispecies should give only a single system, the series of (ranked or unranked) clades. Please see the wikispecies:Village pump for discussion on this. Josh Grosse

The latinized versions that are set as the templates are problematic. I would suggest that wikispecies should elect the standardized system of nomenclature used as specified by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. As of now, their are irrelevent classification taxon that are used and it is extremely irritating. Also, even with the Woese Superkingdom set-up, it is not neccessary to continue to use it in the taxonomy navigation. Andrew Burns (andy85719)

Wikispecies is an international language project. The latinized names are more appropriate than in an English-only setting. As for some of your other edits, please follow the standard of only including the next lower level in the taxonavigation. If you wish to include more, please create the appropriate pages for doing so. Also, please sign "talk" edits with ~~~~. Thank you. - UtherSRG 16:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course wikispecies is international...but the "Domain" proponents may have a point. More people in the world definately use "Domain" than any Latin equivalent. Latin is not a superior language by virtue of no one speaking it, it is the superior language because it is older. But, it loses that advantage if you are making up words in Latin; at that point it's just silly - concepts that were invented by English speakers, should retain English names. Same goes for concepts invented by Greek, Latin, or Swahili speakers. It's at least as easy, if you don't speak English, to learn the meaning of "domain", as it is if you don't speak Latin to learn the meaning of "superregnum". Mathias 05:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly there are actualy several different ways to classify species... Shouldn't we have a page/section for each kind, so you can look things up using whichever classification system you want? --Codewriterohs 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about phylocode section?[edit]

The PhyloCode is a formal set of rules governing phylogenetic nomenclature. It is designed to name the parts of the tree of life by explicit reference to phylogeny. The PhyloCode will go into operation in a few years, but the exact date has not yet been determined. It is designed so that it may be used concurrently with the existing codes based on rank-based nomenclature (ICBN, ICZN, etc.). We anticipate that many people whose research concerns phylogeny will find phylogenetic nomenclature advantageous.

Please, go ahead and write! User:Jcwf
Oops, it is protected, right? Who is sysop here and can change it? User:Jcwf
"In a few years" could mean 2006! At least this is what the insiders hope. I'm one of them.
I agree that Phylocode should be an added feature to the wikispecies site, if not the only way to organize the information. User:clarkefreak[edit]

Are people familiar with TolWeb?

I also have a java applet at my home page which links tolweb pages together with an interactive tree. pmurray


Hi I'm new and would like someone to tell me what I should know about this Wiki. Is there a section for newbies? Meditation 04:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You ought to be experienced before using this place, if not everything will look like nonsense to you. 10:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a taxonomy informatio wiki if i am correct. 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please unprotect the main page. With only two admins here, the page is likely to remain far too static if it's kept locked. Angela 04:11, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, having a few more admins wouldn't be a bad thing. (I volunteer!) - UtherSRG 13:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

apply at Wikispecies:AdministratorsGeni 08:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

links to sister projects[edit]

I don't agree with the "English only" movement of this project but there is no reason that the link to the sisterprojects should go to the english version. eg: the link to wikipedia should not be (to the english wikipedia immediately) but to (there you have the choice to other languages). If there were versions of wikispecies in other languages it is normal that the English wikispecies links to the English wikipedia but now it isn't. 12:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Main page translation[edit]

Is there any project for translating the main page in other languages? -- 13:27, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remove two langs[edit]

Please, remove Shqip (Albanian) - Български (Bulgarian)

from main page. I added those languges to Template:Languages --Metju12 08:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

doneGeni 12:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


How about including a pronunciation guide (as in a dictionary with each species ?)

WikiSpecies vs WikiProject_Tree_of_Life[edit]

I was wondering if anybody had thoughts on whether WikiSpecies is still a viable or worthwhile project, especially since the Wikipedia "Tree of Life" project, in particular the use of Taxoboxes, seem to largely encompass the intended content of WikiSpecies. Additionally, it seems like "Tree of Life" and its subsets on Wikipedia are very active while Wikispecies seems only active in a few areas (for example, Primates).

Has any thought been given to simply merging the two projects - using Wikipedia taxoboxes for Taxonavigation and simply forking or subdividing articles on individual taxa into general information (Wikipedia) and taxonomic (Wikispecies) articles?

An introduction - I'm a fungal taxonomist at San Francisco State University working on a monograph of Psilocybe and allies of California. I'm presently contributing writing and edits to fungal articles in Wikipedia.

Peter Werner - 27 June 2005

Wikispecies is intended to be of use by and for serious scientific purposes. Wikipedia's ToL articles are intended to be more general and may not align 100% with the Wikispecies articles. A few examples: You'll never find "XXX in media" or "XXX as pets" type sections in Wikispecies, but you will in Wikipedia. Also, you won't find partial taxa articles on Wikispecies, while you will on Wikipedia (examples escape my mind at the moment). Wikipedia Taxoboxes are intended to be a brief summary of the taxonomic hierarchy, while the Taxonavigation section is intended to show to full hierarchy. The list of differences is significant. - UtherSRG June 29, 2005 14:40 (UTC)
Wikispecies is not intended to have any prose, whatsoever. It is not a content fork, simply a directory for use by all Wikipedias and interlinking. Thus Wikipedia should contain both general and more specific information - in subarticles, for example. -- 22:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
simple idea, just have similar articles link to each other. could even incorperate this into the infoboxs on their end. would require co-operation with the tree of life guys, but it would solve the confusion of where to put content. 3:59 29 may 2006

Interlingua added[edit]

Hi, I translated the front page into Interlingua. Here it is:

done.Geni 18:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mycroft/ Mozilla search plug-in[edit]

Is there a Mycroft search plugin for Mozilla/ Firefox? If not, could somebody with the necessary skills make one, please? Andy Mabbett

There is one, try the wikipedia page at It was at the bottom of the list when I last looked. - Rooivalk 12:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article count?[edit]

Why isn't there an article count for this?

Perhaps because the # of species shouldn't matter until you're very close to covering all known lifeforms?  :-)
Article count: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} gives 807,143 Sj 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this project not part of Wikipedia?[edit]

I thought Wikipedia was ment to be an encyclopedia of everything. So why is this project not part of Wikipedia? Why does it need to be a seperate project?

The answer you seek is a few sections above. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There is an unnecessary linebreak at the top of the main page code. It can easily be removed and it will make the whole thing look just a little more logical.

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Never expected it to be fixed so fast, thanks. :) -- 21:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch species register ([edit]

This site was opened recently. Might be very fun to look at and use for this project! Hopefully it's not too painful to browse through if you're not a native speaker of Dutch. -- 21:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You should update the logo on wikicommons here: (old one)

It would have been best to tell us you updated the logo, so that it could be updated on all projects.... errrr, there is an issue of size in my browser at least (top and bottom are cut). This is a good-looking logo :-) m:Anthere

Sister Projects[edit]

Check out {{WikipediaSister}} for a good implimentation of the sister projects logos, which I think would be good, using {{Click}}. Happy species-ing! -Mysekurity 03:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why is Eukarya not linked?[edit]

In the taxobox at the top right of the page, the superregnum 'Eukarya' is not a link. Can someone who can edit the front page please fix this. Thanks --HappyDog 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different systems of taxonomy[edit]

Hey folks, what about the different systems of taxonomy? There is not only one single system of taxonomy where everybody agrees with, but there are several different, competing systems of taxonomy, some older, some very new, some based more on phylogenetics, some based on recent molecular genetic research or a mixture of all. So, every species on Wikispecies should have several different (and sometimes) very complex and long taxonomy "trees" because there are several ways of going up from a species to Eukarya/Bacteria/Archaea (see for example w:Mammal classification or Talk:Homo sapiens). This would mean Wikispecies would have to create several taxonomy systems and not just one single like now (at least as long there is still disagreement which taxonomy system is the correct one) which would mean a lot of work. -- Citylover 16:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that myself, in the example of turkey vultures, they're new world vultures that have a genetic relation to storks. So some ornithologists want their taxonomy to reflect their descent and put them with storks while others want their behavior and appearance to be reflected in their taxonomy and put them with vultures. If an entry for a given species has more than one tree it's not problematic. If there's descriptions of why each view is presented, then it provides better understanding about the species. Science is always in conflict, so why not just show the conflict until there is majority view and only one version is left standing?

I think its something to concern about. if i was to program something on this, i would do a prime database with all the data, and then interpretate over it with the taxonomic type of view desired. Now, how many systems are there? When I studied species concept i've found 3 main schools like morphological, evolutionary and philogenetic. Or this has nothing to do with it?

Portuguese version[edit]

Hi. I´d like to know how to start a Portuguese version for this project. Could you help me? Zé Paulo 17:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

linking on main page[edit]

Can you change the Animalia, et al, links on the Main page to point to the corresponding article here on Wikispecies instead of the Wikipedia articles? That would make more sense to me. —Mike 18:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extrapolation to include genealogical tree[edit]

A form of genealogical tree should be implemented in order to a) promote further understanding of biological conditions and/or ailments stemming from genes passed down through generatoins, b)provide a visual network, or a means of quantifying, the cross cultural integration in order to promote acceptance of ethnic groups and c) create a comprehensive database for historical and informative purposes.

In my opinion the medical/biological aspect of such a venture is the most interesting and beneficial, but I assume, if done correctly, this may have a broader effect on society. I have no doubt that there is plenty of interest from various organizations for this project and that the integration with the already successful Wikipedia Encyclopedia will bolster the credibility thereof. Consequently, I urge all those in favor to voice their opinions and push for the construction of this concept.



Where do the lichens fit into all this?

They don't. They are a symbiotic entity. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As symbiotic entities, do they not fit into both the green and colorless branches of the Plant Kingdom? --W8IMP 05:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lichens are named for the fungal symbiote. Generally speaking, lichen forming algae can partner with many fungi species, but lichen forming fungi can partner with only a handful of algal species. For this reason, the fungus bears the scientific name of the lichen. The algae can be referred to separately, if so desired. Note that, in some lichen forming fungus species, there may be both a eukaryotic (green algae) and prokaryotic (blue-green algae) in different regions of an individual lichen, or adjacent individuals in the same population may be entirely partnered with either green or blue-green algae.AndrewT 07:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"X animal as pets"[edit]

The comment was made that this would not be a place for talking about sepcies as exotic pets. Would it be a place for discussing captive breeding and husbandry? As a professional in zoological fields, I think that this would be a very good place record the captive care of various species, esp. since that has a lot of value to researchers and professionals -- and books with that information cost outrageous sums!

I'm no admin, but my own opinion is that there is not a place here for a GENERAL discussion of captive breeding. On the other hand, it might be possible to describe or discuss the effects of captive breeding on a given species. The "Template" section does include a segment on Conservation Status and Threats. That would be where I'd put information about captive breeding/exotic pet trade's impact on a species.-- Rutledge

Well I guess that brings into question what scientists/academics/researchers is this being written for? Because if it's going to be a truly useful academic guide then it should have notes for field work and lab study. I think I'll go suggest a "handling and captivity" section on the templates.

Suggestion for adding a species identifier applet on the main page[edit]

There is now open source software that acts like face recognition matching software except for any image. My proposal is to place this on the main page. Users can then upload their images of species they wish to identify, and the closest images visually will be returned from wikimedia or wherever the images are drawn from for use in Wikispecies. The site that uses the matching software is Pyxor. You have to sign in to see similar images. If anybody has an interest, please contact me at

The software that Pyxor uses is imgseek. Another site that does a similar image mapping is Retrievr.--Socrtwo 09:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


what about the spelling of latin names.. i suggest putting some rules.

Logo proposal created[edit]

Nice logo?

I redrew the logo without gradient in SVG-format. (The image to the right is 300px wide PNG).

I used a few colorversions (stealing the #RGB values from other wiki-logos since I am colorblind) and this one is my favourite.

Why a new logo? well all other wiki-pages have really clean logos without gradients in svg-format so I thought it might be nice to have one.

More versions are on my userpage. User:PER9000 20060705 2157 (CET)

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood/misread an above entry - Wikispecies is not looking for a new logo? Well, ok, at least I have a useraccount here now :-D /Per

Looks nice, but check your license[edit]

When I first created the concept for this logo, my entry to the contest (and all others) were set to give ALL rights to the Foundation. Now you have made simple derivatives but your Creative Commons license asserts that you are the copyright holder. You don't have a right to claim that. I suggest either removing these images or ceding all rights to the Foundation.

Jeremykemp logo speciesLogo.png --Jeremykemp 22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, I'm terribly sorry (I am a rookie at copyright stuff) - I'll replace the copyright info with similar or identical to yours. Per Erik Strandberg 06:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this logo, much more than the current one. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working together[edit]

We might consider working together with already existing species databases (such as Conservation International's database. Just a tought.



It would be appreciated if you would add Wikiversity to the list of sister projects.

The (temporary) logo that Wikiversity is using is Image:Sciences humaines.svg.

An example of another Wikimedia project doing this is at b:Template:Sisterprojects.

I am trying to make this request at all of the other Wikimedia sister projects. Thank you for these changes. --Robert Horning 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Animals[edit]

I was just wondering how they classify baby animals (if there is any) I know there are such names as kids,cubs, gosling, ect. But I would like to know if there is a method to this madness.

Please consult your vernacular language wikipedia for these matters. Lycaon 05:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microformat proposal for marking up taxonomic names[edit]

I am in the process of specifying a formula (a microformat) for marking-up, in HTML, the names of species (and sub-species, varieties, hybrids, etc.), so that such names can be recognised by software and searched, indexed, extracted or aggregated.

The microformat will be an open standard, freely available for anyone to use. It's relevant here, because WikiSpecies is one of the inspirations for it - almost every page on the site could use it.

For instance, if I mark up a list of birds using that microformat, you might have browser tool which lists all the species on the page, and creates links to, say their entries in Wikipedia, or the BTO website, or some academic database of your choosing.

Early thoughts are on an editable wiki and need both messages of support (not just "me too"s, but particularly from people who have websites on which they might use them) and, especially, comments and constructive criticisms.

If you know a webmaster who might be interested, or a taxonomist who might be able to contribute to the debate (are there any "edge cases" not covered by the proposal as it currently stands, for instance?), please pass this message on to them. And please feel free to move this to a more appropriate talk page.

Also, please let me know if there are any mailing lists or web-fora where taxonomical matters are debated.

Thank you.

AndyMabbett 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Admins, in Template:Sisterprojects please change the following:

  • Update the link to English Wikisource as: [[:s:Main Page]]. (The current link is incorrect.)
  • Change the brief description of Wikisource to "The free library" (as in Wikipedia's "The free encyclopedia" and as per Wikisource consensus).

Thanks, Dovi 21:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Kempm 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Maps of Taxonomy Tree[edit]

Have you considered adding visual maps of the WikiSpecies taxonomy tree. Due to the processing demands, images should be created on a machine with the information and uploaded, rather than client side processing. Examples sites of interesting visual maps of related concepts: and the above mentioned working exampled:

VisuMillion is GPL code, and is probably the best place to start for source coders looking at creating images of trees with large numbers of leaves.


p.s. I could not log in with a new wikipedia account to write this. Is that normal? Or do I need accounts for each wikipedia derivative project?

Every domain, subdomain of the Wikimedia organization is running on it's own database, and each project requires you to create a new username. Single-sign-on is being worked on I believe.
The links you give are really interesting and we are aware of those possibilities, but the purpose of wikispecies (set out by the wikimedia foundation) is to provide the taxonomic answers for it's sister projects. In the future wikispecies will be data-driven and it will allow every sister-project to use this data. We only need text in the databases.
For the record: Wikispecies is entirely server-based, not client-based. Only the HTML-code which your browser interprets is client-based :) --Kempm 21:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
see [2] for my java applet that pulls data from the Tree of Life project at the University of Arizona.
Really interesting. If you're interested in such an applet for wikipedia/species, perhaps you need to post your plans on Meta wiki, which is sort of an umbrella for the wikiprojects. They can approve projects, provide server bandwidth, and give technical feedback on such projects. Thx! --Kempm 09:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSS feeds of page-histories[edit]

Would you like to be able to subscribe to RSS (Atom) feeds of the edit histories of your favourite Wikispecies pages? Then vote to add hAtom to the change log of media wiki pages! 22:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life[edit]

Is it intended that there will be co-operation between this project and the "tree of life" being built by the University of Arizona?

Co-operation has been rejected by the people of ToL --Kempm 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historic view[edit]

What about we think of a way (less complex than the scientific one) to show all the classifications given to a certain taxon group? Like, in broyphytas and pteridophytas is changing everything as time passes, and even this names are no more used as they used to, because a lot of families, ordos and classis are now "up a notch". Thus it becomes very confusing to study such, 'cus everyday is something else! With an history of these changes, and even more with the possibility of searching by this, it would be very good, easy and powerfull to study.

Zark Khullah, 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (couldn't login)

Basic descriptions[edit]

Are we considering this project to include basic characteristics of an especie? Or even any taxon. It could have padronized topics, like i don't no, reproduction, food, cycle of life, life expectancy, habits, etc, etc, etc. Not to tell your pet preferences, but something scientifical and simple, you know? Or do you think this should be in wikipedia instead?

Zark Khullah, 23:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Zark Khullah. Wikispecies is much different from other wiki's. Indeed we only focus on taxonomy and nomenclature, nothing else. All other information should be placed on the wikipedia's. You ever noticed the taxoboxes on the wikipedia's, that tells the taxonomical place of a certain organism in the taxonomical tree? That box, will in the future automatically be filled from information from wikispecies. That's why there is a clear limit to the content we have. --Kempm 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in the distant future, from the look of wikispecies. i just searched on delphinus and tracked up to the Theria link and it breaks there (you can go up to theria, but the theria page doesn't show the link back down to cetacea) and below at odontoceti (which doesn't link to delphinus. i take it that it's entirely up to the person doing the entry to check that they're also linking-in each branch above the level they're at when they're adding the chain for a particular species or other level in the taxonomy? and goodness help anyone who relies on the "common names" for anything... 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!!?? No Featured Article!??!?![edit]

Please DISCUSS!!! Why is there no FA on the main page? 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently discussing your idea in Wikispecies:Village pump. Stay tuned!! --Kempm 20:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak main page[edit]

Please add Slovak main page to the international links. Local language name is "Slovenčina" and the page link is Hlavná stránka. Thank you very much. --Wizzard 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page is boring[edit]

As a Wikipedian and new editor to Wikispecies the first thing I noticed is that the main page is boring, there is not much content to draw a casual browser into Wikispecies and get them surfing and wanting to be more involved. I would suggest maybe a small block for each of Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Bacteria, Archaea, Protista with enticing pictures and brief text that changes fairly regularly (maybe each one changes on a different day of the week) and invites the browser to surf and learn. Jeepday 14:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is that WikiSpecies content isn't intresting stuff if you don't are intrested in taxonomy. And if you are intrested in taxonomy I think the Main page invites you to browse deeper. But maybe there should be more text about taxonomy and so on.. Now there isn't any. Hm... – linnea (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of List[edit]

Is there any rhyme or reason to the order of categories in this sentence? "It covers Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Bacteria, Archaea, Protista and all other forms of life.", the order is neither alphbetical nor taxonomic.Ohwilleke 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It should NOT say

"Wikispecies is free. Because life is public domain!"


Wikispecies is free, Because life is public domain!

'Because life is public domain' is not a complete sentence, so it needs the w:comma there because it is dependant of the first part. Also, mottoes should not have w:quotation marks. -w:User:Reywas92. 02:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it now. But you can also edit main page. – linnea (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nope, he/she can't. only registered users can. Lycaon 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sister projects template[edit]

This template could be done better. Copying text from the en Wikipedia version (modified for wikispecies use), it should look more like:

Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that also hosts a range of other projects:

Dictionary and thesaurus
Free-content news
Collection of quotations
Free textbooks and manuals
The free encyclopedia
Free-content library

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Free learning materials and activities
Shared media repository
Wikimedia project coordination 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multilingual link on the current sister projects template links to Wikipedia page w:Wikipedia:Multilingual, a page that doesn't exist. I think an admin who can edit this should fix it. Wimt 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Names[edit]

Do we really need all the Vernacular names on every page. No offense but does anyone really care if we known what Animila is called in Polish? Its just cluttering up pages and taking up space when the Vernacular names are 3 times as long as the article itself.

if Wikispecies shows the most accurate, detailed, complete taxonomic hierarchies, then.....[edit]

If Wikispecies shows the most accurate, detailed, complete taxonomic hierarchies, then is there a way for Wikipedia and Tree-o-Life authors to code their entries to automatically display the corresponding Wikispecies taxonomic hierarchy? Otherwise it seems there's a lot of effort being duplicated.

I know the two projects are not entirely parallel with regard to purpose, but I don't see what harm a one-way means of linkage (from the data source of greatest integrity outward) could do.

Link to Russian Main page[edit]

Please replase link Главная страница with Заглавная страница. ~ putnik 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of Life[edit]

Let us please have some prominent links to the Encyclopedia of Life:

Why Procaryotae isnt mentioned as a superregnum?[edit]

Why there are no superregnum Procaryotae, but Archaea and Bacteria instead? Is this officially accepted or just an idea of wiki editors? /Christian

The difference is probably due to the Three-domain system versus the Two-empire system. --Georgeryp 15:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Species[edit]

Hi, I've recently created a list of species here: User:MovGP0/Species. This list is not well structured, but maybe you will find that helpfull for further research. MovGP0 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homo Taxonmy[edit]

This has been done by research. I have linked these by definitive/likely relation. Others havn't been listed due to their ancestry not being known

                            [[Homo rudolfensis]]
                              [[Homo habilis]]
                             [[Homo georgicus]]
                              [[Homo Erectus]]  
 H.e. lantianensis  H.e. palaeojavanicus  H.Sapiens  H.e. pekinensis  H.e. soloensis
                       [[Homo Sapiens Sapiens]]         [[Homo Sapiens Idaltu]]

This is Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Sub-form. note: The only differences in the below are slightly different gene codeing used for their survival in different climates (Darker skin in warmer places, paler skin in cooler places.)

                         Homo Sapiens Sapiens
                 Homo Sapiens Sapiens Africanus A (Black)
         Homo Sapiens Sapiens Africanus B (North Africa + Middle East)
                 Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia A (India...)
 Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia B (China...Japan...) Homo Sapiens Sapiens Eurasia C (Europe)

for thurther info you can't realy add the H.S.S sub-form thing world wide, as some consider it Racism if it is missinterprited so i'd like to point out that the only difference in any of these 5 is the genes allowing them to adapt to certain climate (this way those higher up are NOT concidered inferior, actualy they're all equal)..


I believe this entire wiki is a GFDL-violation at the moment. You need to have a link to GFDL license on the bottom of every page just like how it is on English wikipedia. The license link isn't present on "edit" pages. Please fix this. -- Cat chi? 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks[edit]

For some year, we expect a lot from wikispecies. But there are still a lot of problems.

First mistake[edit]

For one taxon, there are many classifications (See fr:Classification_classique). Wikispecies présents only one, but never precise which one. This is a big mistake. When you give a classification, you must always precise which one!

Every big classification site (like ITIS) precise wich classification it follows in a specific page. But as wikispecies as so many different contributor, I think the classification followed should be specified in each article.

Another reason to specify the classification followed in each page is that wikispecies will change of classification as a new one appears every 2-5 years. So during the migration there will be pages in both classifications. And that won't be a problem as the classification will be displayed

Second mistake[edit]

Presenting only one classification is too restrictif. You should present one classical Classification and one phylogenetic classification! See what proposes: fr:Sapindaceae.

Third mistake[edit]

I think that wikispecies takes a little bit of the best of each classification. You mix the classifications, and that is a bad thing, perhaps due to the fact that you don't precise the classification.

For exemple, Acer is placed under Sapindaceae which is due to recent DNA analysis of fr:APG II. But you don't present a phylogeneticat classification beacause there are no clades. Acer is also placed under Magnoliophyta and Magnoliopsida which tend to orientate to Cronquist Classification, but he places Acer under Aceracae! So your Acer is a mixe between APG II, Cronquist and de:Systematik der Bedecktsamer:Strasburger


I often see talks on fr between admin, to deactivate temporarely the links to wikispecies. For now they always decide to give wikispecies a chance, but it will not last.

Best regards Liné1 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Sorry for the bad english. Please understand that I wish all the best to wikispecies.

New language[edit]

Can an administrator add the simple English main page to list of languages. --Z 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main page title[edit]

I'm administrator in gl:wiki. Shouldn't be better to hide the "Main page" text to get better use of space. In addition, I think it would happyfy the main page as suggested by Jeepday and IP above. I'm trying to perform it in gl:wiki but I still don't know. I've asked in Meta. Do you know how? If yes or not, we can share how to do it. Sobreira 15:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the ...? I don't understand those backlinks to WP[edit]

Wikispecies is an open, free directory of species. It covers Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Bacteria, Archaea, Protista and all other forms of life. All the types counted in the latter sentence are links to Wikipedia, not Wikispecies!! Why? I think a user who accidentally clicks on them will probably not even be aware of being OUT of Wikispecies at this very moment! -andy 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a difference in color between internal links and interwiki links, but I do agree that it's potentially confusing. Dunno how to best fix it, however, since the blue Taxonavigation box to the right links to our pages on those topics, meaning that linking in both places would be a bit redundant... EVula // talk // // 17:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I never noticed the slight difference in color between interwikis and internal links but now I see it - Anyway, there's no way it makes sense that the very first links on the main page of a project should link (subtlety or not) off the site. I vote to either "delink" the terms in the sentence or redundantly link them inside the project. Either choice makes more sense and reduces confusion over the current situation. --Georgeryp 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's a nice idea to take a look at the whole front page? Over the last two years, the different blocks have been moved around a bit and you can still see it is not one finely-cut lay-out. I was thinking... perhaps we can post in a few wikipedia's if people are willing to design a nice frontpage, the winner get its layout used here. Should give us both a good-looking frontpage, and perhaps some more attention from other projects. When I talk about design, I also mean the actual text can perhaps be pimped up as well. --Kempm 22:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been meaning to take a knife to the main page in my userspace for a while, but have been lacking the time. I'll see if I can kick something around later today... EVula // talk // // 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help redesign it if you'd like. Monobi 23:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome to Wikispecies! A free directory of life"[edit]

This seems incorrect. Perhaps: "Welcome to Wikispecies, a free directory of life!" would be more suitable. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say that the grammatically correct version :). I've changed the English main page. Mønobi 02:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikispecies is free, because life is public domain!" is a rather bad tagline, considering that Wikispecies is only free and not in the public domain, unlike life. - 03:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free under the GNU [3] :) . But I agree that something new is needed. Mønobi 04:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of the main page[edit]

It would seem prudent. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. If it's never vandalised, what is the point? It is a wiki, remember :) Majorly 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but, I mean, I'm into the whole spirit of the wiki thing, but this is the main page here. It makes sense, no? Cheers, ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn. I can understand the rationale for protection, but at the same time, there's no history of it being vandalized... I'll semi-protect it; that will prevent any potential drive-by vandalism (which is all we ever get), but won't prohibit legitimate constructive edits (and will still allow other active users to revert vandalism from sleeper accounts). EVula // talk // // 21:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or, I could double-check and see that it's been semi-protected (admin-only move protection) since March 2006. Well then. EVula // talk // // 21:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too that semi-protection is adequate. After all, it is one of the prides of wikispecies, being such a quiet project and all. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I'm new to wikispecies and I have noticed that none of the species pages have links to wikipedia articles (most of the primates have significant articles), no dates of last appearance for extinct species (such as the thylacine, dodo and mammoth) and no mention of specimens. I am not a professional myself but I'm sure those who are would greatly appreciate some details.

Wikispecies aims to be a quick taxonomic reference. Such details are for Wikipedia. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plant cultivation[edit]

We've created a wiki for plant cultivation (here) because Wikipedia does not cover this. Is it possible to give me feedback on the best way of running this in parallel with Wikispecies ? I would like to know what the Wikipedians think of such an initiative. FWIW, it's non-profit.

Some changes made[edit]

I removed the link to the mailing list, as it looks completely unused and basically dead. Secondly, I re-aligned the columns so they're both 50-50 and slightly enlarge the butterfly to compensate for more space in the top right-hand box. The realignment was to remove the whitespace caused by the ever-expanding language template. Maxim(talk) 23:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eald Englishc?[edit]

Seeing Old English on the list of languages feels unprofessional and fannish to me. I feel like it's a short step from that to having Klingon and Pig Latin versions of the main page. Google has a few "joke" languages, and with several of them it is kind of funny. Nevertheless, it does lend an unprofessional feeling to the whole affair. I guess I'd either like to see the Eald Englisc version removed, or would encourage people to submit Klingon/Pig Latin/Swedish Chef/Snoop Dogg versions of the main page (which would give it an unprofessional, but jocular feeling).

I've got no problem with constructed languages, like Interlingua and Esperanto. I suppose I could get behind extinct languages, but I'd think a Latin version would be most appropriate if the main page only presents a translation into one extinct language. AndrewT 06:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies a directory, tree?[edit]

Im not sure I understand. When i came here i expected to find a tree of species. Something like the tree[s] here

I am looking at the Taxonavigation. Is this the root for the tree? If so its very confusing. I am looking at Animalia and I don't where to go for mammals, maybe a I want to see all the different horse species or something. I click Eumetazoa and see a fish. Then i go through all of them an click Deuterostomia, and there is a mouse. Yippy im getting close. click Echinodermata i think i when the wrong direction, but i click Chordata and see a cat. Im in the right direction. Click Urochordata, Oh crap im lost again. I use my brain a little bit and see Vertebrata, now im getting somewhere. Click though all of them and ... you get the point. I am quite ignorant in biology, relative to you folks My experience is only up to high school bio. So I think a more structures tree is in order. And defiantly short descriptions, so i at least know how to get to mammals. I understand taxonomy is more complex than aniamals->vertabets->mammals->Horsey, but a few hits(description) would help us normal(stupid) people. Well thats my thought. Also when i think of directory i think a long list of everything, I couldn't find that ether. ZyMOS 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our target audience is not casual editors, but scientists (to be specific, biologists). It's OK if you don't understand, but to be honest with you, almost all online database use this format (both government and organizations) OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Where does zooplankton go? Zooplankton is an animal, hence the name, right? Why is it not classified under animalia? 10:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not any one animal. Zooplankton consists of many different organisms, many of which (unicellular protists) are no longer considered true animals. I think en:Zooplankton explains this well. Ucucha (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community page to identify plants and animals[edit]

As I hiker and backpacker, I like to identify pants and animals that I see. I have a few books to help identify, but I find that I am often wrong. Some of the plants and berry that I try to identify may be poisonous, so it is important that I get it right. I was wondering if there is some kind of community page which people can post photos of plants and animals and experts can help people identify them. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by RefBug (talkcontribs).

You may want to check out the dichotomous key at WikiBooks instead since the focus here is currently more on classification, rather than identification. --Georgeryp 12:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uploading an image to a viewable form[edit]

I am trying to upload an image for the Python regius page yet whenever I click on upload file, it says that uploading files has been disabled. is this temporary or permenent. I have the permision of the author of the photo yet I cannot seem to figure out how to get the photo into a viewable form and not just as a file to click on. Can anybody help?


I will answer in your talk page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Overview, Please!?[edit]

- how does WS fit with EoL and other collections of such info?
If there is someone in charge, please do something about this mindless medusa (my initial impression).
I cannot seem to find a project overview, mission, nor history,
a description of the project design, status, milestones, or goals,
nor how this project fits with, competes with, or complements other related projects like the following:
Encyclopedia of Life
Tree of Life
Life on Earth
The EarthLife Web
Field Guide
Dichotomous Key
Wikipedia Sister
and there must be others too.
It would be useful & inspiring, especially for visitors to get a sense of perspective and see where to put the most value and effort.
( 03:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi there. This page gives an overview and history of Wikispecies while this page explains why this project is created. We also have an FAQ in case you have more questions about our project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I would say that the relative lack of "beauracracy" here at Wikispecies is actually an advantage, for all the other similar projects mentioned above seem to me to be becoming little more than "self-perpetuating beauracracies", more concerned with keeping people in paid work than with actually cutting the crap and getting the job done. In my view, the way to approach Wikispecies is to search for the information you are looking for and then verify it against the references cited on the Wikispecies pages. The pages are intended to point the user in the right direction, nothing more. It is a case of "caveat emptor", but I think you will find Wikispecies becoming more and more of a goldmine of useful information. Many of the other sites claim to be reliable and written by experts, but the reality is that no information from secondary sources can be relied upon to be accurate and therefore must be verified against the primary literature. Stho002 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just classification?[edit]

Why does this just have classification? -- 16:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Severe concerns about scope of Wikispecies[edit]

There are several issues I want to address here. To mention it, I have read “What Wikispecies is not” and also the charter. Nevertheless I am still disturbed and unsatisfied. I will try to explain, why.

At first, there is none, not even a single description of any species here! I know, this project claims to be a sister project, not a fork – but it is a shame nonetheless. Look at - some student there are beginning to roll it up.

Second, if Wikispecies is only a catalogue of taxonomy, why is virtually nothing there to be found in? For example, the claim that “genus” level has been reached within the domain bacteria seems unfair to me. Why can’t I find genera I have been looking for? Why are there so many genera that are listed, but have no entry? To spin it forth, many people have been wondering, if any cooperation with TOL or EOL has been considered or any integration of data has been thought of. Noble thoughts. But has anyone considered that there are other projects which are far more beyond in both information content and accuracy? Let me name just two (there are more):

The Catalogue of Life is very comprehensive and retaining an up-to-date “secure” listing of taxonomic entries, including literature to every listed species, although it is quite conservative and reluctant somehow (e.g. not including archaeal phyla like Nanoarcheaota and Korarcheota and placing several taxa inside outdated taxonomic contexts). It is, in all, a good place to start off, also showing a tree-like hierarchical navigation so you are always aware of your current position in the tree of life and the adjacent taxa, too.

Uniprot has not only listed the up-to-date “secure” taxa, but also nearly all candidate phyla/divisions, other taxa and so on. Additionally, thousands of yet not “positionable” species, OTUs and sequences of environmentally derived samples are listed; as hierarchically as it can be achieved by to-days means.

For Wikispecies, is it the scope to cope with these projects? Then infinite work is to be done. So far for criticism, just my two cents. Here is my wishlist for some project (don’t know which):

- comprehensive listing of ALL taxa known and described

- integration of candidate divisions

- taxonomic entries should be less phenotypic but more phylogenetic, i.e. ancestry is clearly shown, so the course of life is clearer to follow upon

- a guide tree

- therefore, not only relying on the ever-outdated Bergey’s Manual (in case of microbes) is recommended, but staying in touch with recent findings

- integration of phenotypic descriptions to all taxa as comprehensive, as possible – that means, at foremost, physiological properties - and no, that does not clash with my previous demands

Another curiosity - what makes an interlingual version of Wikispecies so far from being appreciated? I understand that english has indeed evolved to a lingua franca in science these days, but first, we have other Wikimedia Projects in several languages and second, if Wikispecies lays such a big focus on names in latin, arguing for intelligibility, why isn't the whole page in latin?

OK, some problems I address here may only be pressing from my microbiologist’s view, but I strongly recommend to review everyone the conception of taxa in general and species in special to evaluate the aim of future projects within this very field. Some thoughts are given by Wilkins:

Discussion and suggestions are very welcome. Please do not hesitate to leave comments at my userpage - or e-mail me. Fermenterboy 02:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox addon[edit]

Maybe you could use this addon:

with one click you can replace the latin text with text in your own language without modify nothing here -- JCFC 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration with ZooKeys[edit]

That line should read: A collaboration with ZooKees has been announced. CQ 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Stho002 00:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]