User talk:Kiwi Rex

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changes to Reptile Taxonomy[edit]

Hi Kiwi Rex, could I please ask you to explain your changes to the reptile taxonomy. Particularly with regards to turtles. Since turtles are not Diapsids, the Archelosauria is not the same as the Archosauria and who you citing to place the Saurians where you do. This taxonomy does not make sense. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 06:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent phylogenetic analyses have shown that turtles are, in fact, diapsids and probably archosauromorphs, though others have concluded they are lepidosauromorphs.[1] If turtles are archosauromorphs, then Archelosauria = Archosauromorpha.[2] Sauria has been redefined as the crown group of archosaurs and lepidosaurs (Gauthier, 1988)[3]. Since turtles almost certainly belong in this crown group too, Sauria can be said to be the reptile crown group, while Sauropsida is the pan group. Kiwi Rex (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats not all fully accepted and there are other hypotheses too. In particular those oF Joce and others. Most recent analyses have placed them with the birds and crocs, not the sauria. I do not agree for an instant they are related to lepidosaurs, een though they share a derived character of the skull with snakes, I think that is covergent. Please dont cite Wikipedia to convince me I need primary sources plus reviews of acceptance. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Like I said, Sauria is the Lepidosauromorpha+Archosauromorpha clade[4][5][6]. Crocs and birds are saurians by definition, and there's now a fair amount of different researches supporting the idea that turtles are saurian diapsids too instead of being closely related to parareptiles as previously thought.[7][8][9].Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving templates and categories[edit]

Hi. If you move a template as you did here, then you must also correct all the links that refer to the template, namely these. Thank you. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Template recursion depth limit[edit]

Hi. Please note that due to technical limitations, Wikimedia templates can not be nested within other templates more than 40 "levels" deep. As a result the {{Avebrevicauda}} template you recently created now renders a bright red error message saying "Template recursion depth limit exceeded (40)". This error message will not only show up on the actual templates page, but also on most of the pages where the template is transcluded. Examples: Palaeognathae, Piciformes, Neornithes, and many more. In order to remedy this the {{Avebrevicauda}} template must be shortened, so that it includes fewer levels of taxa. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

You mean something like the Feliformia template here?Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No... I'm not sure what you mean. As far as I can see the {{Feliformia}} template isn't used on the Felis silvestris catus page..? I may have been a bit unclear in my earlier message to you. Here's a more thorough explanation:
Take a look at for example Avebrevicauda, a taxon page reently created by you. There you can see the red warning text "Template recursion depth limit exceeded (40)" followed by a long list of different taxa. It starts with cladus Bilateria as the top rank and continues down to cladus Avebrevicauda, all added automatically by the {{Avebrevicauda}} template (plus two lower taxa that you've added manually, i.e. not added by the template). This is of course wrong. First and most important, I'm sure you understand that cladus Bilateria really shouldn't be the highest rank! Instead, the highest rank should of course be superregnum Eukaryota, followed by regnum Animalia, etc, etc.
Here's the problem: As I said earlier, the Wikimedia server software doesn't allow templates to be nested within other templates more than 40 levels "deep". If there are more than 40 templates used within each other, then the top ones are cut off automatically by the server. That is why the Avebrevicauda page has Bilateria listed as the top rank: it is the 39th taxon/template from the bottom and up, and all the higher taxon ranks are cut by the server. Consider this: if you check the code in the Avebrevicauda template (you probably have to scroll down on that page to see the code), you will see that is has the template {{Euavialae}} nested within itself. And if you then take a look at the code in the Euavialae template (again, scroll), you will see that it has the {{Aves}} template nested within itself. In other words all of these three template are dependent on each other, as a "tree", like this:
That's a list of templates that are nested 3 levels within each other, where Avebrevicauda depends on Euavialae, and Euavialae depends on Aves. Three nestings would work fine. However... remember I said that there is a 40 level limit? Here is a list of all templates that {{Avebrevicauda}} is currently dependent of, from Avebrevicauda itself and then up one level at a time, all the way to the highest rank:
  1. {{Avebrevicauda}}
  2. {{Euavialae}}
  3. {{Aves}}
  4. {{Avialae}}
  5. {{Eumaniraptora}}
  6. {{Paraves}}
  7. {{Pennaraptora}}
  8. {{Aveairfoila}}
  9. {{Maniraptora}}
  10. {{Maniraptoriformes}}
  11. {{Maniraptoromorpha}}
  12. {{Coelurosauria}}
  13. {{Avetheropoda}}
  14. {{Tetanurae}}
  15. {{Averostra}}
  16. {{Neotheropoda}}
  17. {{Theropoda}}
  18. {{Eusaurischia}}
  19. {{Saurischia}}
  20. {{Dinosauria}}
  21. {{Ornithodira}}
  22. {{Archosauria}}
  23. {{Crurotarsi}}
  24. {{Archosauromorpha}}
  25. {{Sauria}}
  26. {{Diapsida}}
  27. {{Romeriida}}
  28. {{Eureptilia}}
  29. {{Reptilia}}
  30. {{Amniota}}
  31. {{Reptiliomorpha}}
  32. {{Tetrapoda}}
  33. {{Gnathostomata (Vertebrata)}}
  34. {{Vertebrata}}
  35. {{Chordata Craniata}}
  36. {{Chordata}}
  37. {{Deuterostomia}}
  38. {{Nephrozoa}}
  39. {{Bilateria}}     ← this is the highest taxon listed on the Avebrevicauda page, since 40 marks the limit
  40. {{Eumetazoa}}
  41. {{Animalia}}
  42. {{Eukaryota}}

As you can see there a more than 40 levels... Also, a massive 25 of them are cladi, which seems like way too many. Unfortunately the only good way to solve this problem is to delete some of the templates, so that the total amount of nested templates doesn't exceed 40. However deleting some of the templates must be done very carefully, since all lower ranked templates are dependant on all of the higher ranked templates in order to work. Say for example we delete the Pennaraptora template: then the six templates for its lower ranked taxa Paraves, Eumaniraptora, Avialae, Aves, Euavialae and Avebrevicauda will all immediately start show incomplete and/or incorrect information. So we need to give this carful thought before we go ahead and make any drastic changes. I will notify other admins, fishing for ideas on how to best fix all of this. In the meantime you can find more information here: Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 43#Problem of limit of template recursion depth and here: Wikipedia:Avoiding MediaWiki expansion depth limit.

Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 01:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]

So if we need to remove some cladi from the template sequence, the first ones to come to my mind are Eusaurischia (probably polyphyletic and not much more inclusive than its parent taxon, Saurischia), Maniraptoromorpha (it's just Maniraptoriformes + 1 or 2 genera; or remove Maniraptoriformes and retain Maniraptoromorpha), Paraves (contains Scansoriopterygidae and Eumaniraptora, but the Scansoriopterygidae page says its parent taxon is Avialae, not Paraves; or remove Eumaniraptora and retain Paraves), and Avebrevicauda (it's Pygostylia + 1 genus).Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is solved now. I removed many templates from the sequence (though they still exist, they just aren't in use now) but the cladistic sequence is still the same.Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are the clades without they templates in use: Eusaurischia, Neotheropoda, Averostra, Maniraptoromorpha, Aveairfoila, Pennaraptora, Paraves, Eumaniraptora, Averaptora, Euornithes, Ornithuromorpha, and Ornithurae. Their templates can be deleted. By the way, only the page Pennaraptora links to Paraves.Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hassanin et al., 2012[edit]

The results of Hassasanin et al. (2012) are not consensual among researchers, so I urge you not to move articles based solely on this reference. Burmeister (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay then.Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking more into this, it seems their results are not unique. Sasaki et al. (2005)[10], Gatesy et al. (2012)[11] and Árnason et al. (2018)[12] all have found similar results. The humpback whale is inside the Balaenoptera lineage, and Hassanin et al. (2012) were the only to provide an updated nomenclature to reflect this discovery. It could be argued that the humpback whale should simply be renamed Balaenoptera novaeangliae, but they decided to split the genus and make B. physalus the only species left in Balaenoptera - we have to follow published sources and ideally the most accurate ones, which means Hassanin et al. names should be used. Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template Aves[edit]

WARNING: Don't modify {{Aves}}! Your change generates "Expansion depth limit exceeded" errors in hundreds of pages. If you do you'll be blocked! It was extensively explained to you in a previous post in your talk page. Mariusm (talk) 14:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]