User talk:CaCO3

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! EVula // talk // 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

References OR External Links?[edit]

(Automatically Translated by Google into Portuguese): Olá. Penso que a sua adição como este, que adiciona um novo "Ligações externas", seção provavelmente deve estar sob A seção padrão "==References==" ao invés (ver Help:Reference section)? O formato aqui mudou bastante por isso talvez você viu encontrados alguns antigos páginas com um velho "Ligações externas", seção? Isto pode ser melhor que se abre sobre a Wikispecies:Village Pump desde que eu tenha sido em torno de apenas uma vez aqui no início deste ano, outras poderiam melhor enfrentar isso.) (Original English: Hi. I think your additions like this one, which add a new "External links" section should probably be under the standard section "==References==" instead (see Help:Reference section)? The format here has changed a lot so maybe you saw found some old pages with an old "External links" section? This may be best brought up on the Wikispecies:Village Pump since I've only been around here since earlier this year so others could better address this.) --Georgeryp 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Using ITIS template[edit]

When using {{ITIS}} in genus, species, and subspecies (such as Vulpes vulpes pusilla), be sure to use this format of parameter {{ITIS |# |''genus/species name''}} instead of just {{ITIS |#}}. This is because the template cannot identify if it's used in genus/species where italicizing the name is required. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I think you have make a mistake with the species in Alochthonius (Allochthonius). The template says it has to be A. (A.) borealis –


PeterR 18:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


Why is the page Hyalonema deleted? It is a normal genus with subgenera and species.


PeterR 07:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Canis lupus lupus[edit]

I don't think that Canis lupus lupus, Canis lupus italicus, and Canis lupus signatus are the same species. I'm quoting wikipedia The Iberian wolf differs from the more common Eurasian Wolf with its thinner build, the white marks on the upper lips, the dark marks on the tail and a pair of dark marks in its front legs that give it its subspecies name, signatus ("marked"). The subspecies differentiation may have developed at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Ages due to the isolation of the Iberian Peninsula when glacier barriers grew in the Pyrenees and eventually reached the Gulf of Biscay in the West and the Mediterranean in the East. and I read somewhere something similar on canis lupus italicus happened for the alpi mountains presence.

I don't have an account on wikispecies so you can contact me on the italian wikipedia here

Templates problems[edit]

Crap, didn't know "zea" refers to both a genus and an ISO language code. I posted on Village Pump and see what others think. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Papilio (Pterourus)[edit]

Who have said that the subgenus Pterourus is not reliable? I add all the genera after Lamas, 2004 and Williams, 2008. Lamas mentioned the subgenus Pterourus as valid. Allso the bulletins with new species and subspecies mention Papilio (Pterourus).

In 2002 Pavulaan and Wright discovered a new species Pterourus appalachiensis. Lamas in 2004 mentioned the subgenus Pterourus as valid and placed appalachiensis under Papilio (Pterourus) appalachiensis. Therefore we have to follow Lamas and NOT Pavulaan and Wright.(See allso the picture.

I don't know your background but I'm an Amateur Entomologist and member of NEV (Nederlandsche Entomologische Vereniging). I order all the books and bulletins by my library for the full text and I e-mail over the world with Entomologist, like Lamas, Fibiger, Brown etc. about the status of new Families etc. For me the subgenus Pterourus is not doubtfull.

You did not answer my questions above.


PeterR 19:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


I see you have make a link with an unreliable site ITIS. There is a discussion page with unreliable sides.


PeterR 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)