Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 26 March 2011

• WT:AAR

Archives

April 2006-January 2008 February 2008-October 2008 April 2009-October 2009 November 2009-December 2010

Aldabra Tortoises

Ok we have a problem. The genera Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys both have pages, they are synonyms, and neither adequately link to the species that is in both of them Aldabra giant tortoise. Now there is argument over which is valid my suggestion is to use Aldabrachelys as per the recommendations of current usage in ICZN Case 3463. However, you could conceivably use either name till the ICZN makes a decision. What would we prefer here? I am open to suggestion. Faendalimas (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The ICZN link wont seem to work for me, given your more extensive knowledge in the field I would be inclined to go with your suggestion, however having read the Aldabra giant tortoise article it lists and references its genera as Dipsochelys so I am on the fence with this one. Maybe even just make the Aldabrachelys a redirect to the Aldabra article until the ICZN makes a decision? ZooPro 03:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We could conceivably do whatever we want here since both names have been used in the literature. What I will do is I am going to write a section for the Aldabra giant tortoise that will go through the nomenclatural issues that will summarize the ICZN case and the various comments on it. I would like a consensus on this so once I have adequately summarized the ICZN case we can revisit this and make a decision together as a team on this. Sorry the link did not work for you try this one: http://iczn.org/category/history-case/all-cases/cases-3000-present/cases-3400-3499/case-3463. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend sticking with what the majority of users still use. There is a lot of cutting edge taxonomy going on. And at the end of the day it is more like a style guide decision than a scientific detection of a new element. So I would stick with current usage and not get too whipsawed but the latest greatest taxonomy.TCO (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In cases like this, I think we should stick with the most common taxonomy, which as far as I can see uses Aldabrachelys gigantea. Ucucha 08:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There are maybe around 100 or so turtle articles where the taxonomy is out of date. Some of them years out of date with no sign indicated to the reader of the problem, one example was the Trachemys species issues that I updated this pass week. Given enough time then the idea is to convert all turtle articles to comply with whatever the recent official taxonomy information is. In the above Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys situation say in the article that both are valid and the situation is unresolved with references to the latest quality sources. The species articles can then list both genera in the taxobox and naming somewhat like Blanding's turtle and Western pond turtle does - two more examples of unresolved genera although both of these were easier to fix being monotypic. Given however that amendments take time I'd start by tagging article {{out of date}}. Geoemydidae, Geochelone, Aldabrachelys and several others want a serious workout. Plenty to do if anyone wants to help out! Regards, SunCreator 14:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok then thanks for the comments. What I think I will do then.. As there are some 6 species in this genus the existence of a genus page is important. So I am going to take the information from both the genus pages and combine and rewrite them under the name Aldabrachelys, I wont delete Dipsochelys but make it a redirect to Aldabrachelys, that way people can search with either name. Of course both names and the issues will be in the page. I will also update all the species pages concerned to link to Aldabrachelys rather than the current situation that also includes Geochelone. My reason for using Aldabrachelys is that the ICZN recommends maintenance of current and most common usage in disputed cases. I have plenty of references to utilise to help explain this situation for readers. Its some major rewriting so will be a work in progress I will keep "out of date" tags on it while I am fixing it. Sound good?? Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let me know if the navigation template {{Testudinidae}} requires altering, I've tried to make that reflect current information.. Regards, SunCreator 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Most edited articles

A cool new tool. Regards, SunCreator 23:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! There's no contest of course, but it's a blowout!  ;-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Very cool tool. I like what it shows, too. But still, great way to keep pulse on activity.TCO (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice tool indeed. Not hard to guess who the four editors are on Painted turtle :P ZooPro 04:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unassessed articles

Well I almost fell off my chair to learn we have 1,368 unassessed articles for AAR see here. I hope to get that list down to zero by the end of january and if anyone is willing to help please reply and we may be able to work out a system of some sort to deal with the 1000+ article. Cheers ZooPro 09:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I would help out (sort of drudge work, I know). Just point me in the direction of the guidelines used for this project for article importance.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

50 down only a thousand or so to go :P ZooPro 11:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha.  :-) What bothers me more than the number that don't have their quality assessed is the number that must not even have the project banner. I've come across quite a few, one very recently: Morelia spilota mcdowelli. I'll begin work too, don't worry (sort of have my hands full at the moment).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The most effective way to get untagged articles tags is to create of relevant categories to the project and use User:Xenobot Mk V. Regards, SunCreator 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessed for importance another 50 or so, all B-class, C-class and Lists. Many hands make light work! Regards, SunCreator 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be taking a look as well. bibliomaniac15 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I assessed ~50 articles...so far the list has gone down to 1129 results. I'll be sending out a mass note to people to join the assessment drive. bibliomaniac15 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Dahong Palay

Hello. I would like to ask if any of you are familiar with any green venomous snakes from the Philippines locally known as dahong palay (literally 'rice leaf')? According to local beliefs the snake is thus named for its resemblance to a single blade of rice, it is also said to be so poisonous it secretes venom through its skin (tall order, I know, haha).

Whatever its supposed behaviors are, its existence has long been taken as fact by most Filipinos, to the point that most of us here are deathly afraid of small green snakes and kill them on sight indiscriminately. A traditional filipino weapon is also supposedly named after it (Dahong Palay), hence this discussion. Since you guys are more familiar with the subject, I'd like to ask: is it a real species or is it simply an exaggerated folk tale? --Obsidi♠n) 11:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC) :It is a cryptid please read this article Dahong Palay . Regards ZooPro 11:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a link I provided as it is not a worthy nor acceptable source, There is no official snake known as Dahong Palay, its a myth/legend and refers to any green snake found in the area. ZooPro 11:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Er... the edit saying it is a cryptid is MY edit. Heh. :P But thanks for clarifying. Previously the article identified Ahaetulla prasina as being the dahong palay and describes it as 'lethal'. I removed the dab and species mention because of this and replaced it with a cite of the folk story instead. --Obsidi♠n) 12:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I dont know why you would insert the information into the article, qoute a questionable source then come here to ask if its real or not. I have removed the information in the article as it is not sourced correctly, Had I known you wrote it I would clearly not have referred you to the article. Furthermore google returns very little information about the name Dahong Palay being used for any snake. What a waste of my time. Please do not re-insert the information into the article as you have clearly been reverted once before. Regards ZooPro 12:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Um... a bit confrontational aren't we? To clarify. Please view the article BEFORE my edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dahong_Palay&action=historysubmit&diff=406665085&oldid=341449571). That was the reason why I inserted that information on the article and why I asked the question. The folk tale of the dahong palay is well known enough (it's actually in school textbooks), you yourself said it is not a real snake, and I too came to the same conclusion after trying to find references leading to the identification of the actual snake referred to as dahong palay.

So what's the verdict? Is it real or not? Because it's pointless removing that information and blaming me for 'wasting your time' if it in turn means the implication that the snake is real and is highly poisonous, as was originally hinted at by the article.--Obsidi♠n 12:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No not real. ZooPro 12:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, is it okay then to restore that source for the statement 'legendary snake' in the lead without restoring the original conclusion that it is a cryptid? (which is actually true, though yes I admit, it's original research). The folk tale is a good enough reference to point out the mythical status of the snake.--Obsidi♠n 12:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No "Legendary" would indicate it is of great importance to the culture and people and well known, google tells me it is neither, a folk tale is not really a reliable source itself, if you can provide another source to back up the claim then I have no problem with the information being in the article, however a more NPOV in describing the "cryptid" would be better. Regards ZooPro 12:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... okay, is it a mistake in wording then? How about 'mythical', or 'a snake from local folklore'? You are not Filipino, correct? It is not of great importance, of course, but the belief in its veracity is so pervasive that deaths are misattributed to it quite frequently. Some branches of the Philippine military use it also as part of their official seals/designations. But when you dig deeper, you realize that there is actually no scientifically documented evidence of such a snake existing. That gives you two problems:

1) No citable reference can clearly point out what snake it actually is. And current knowledge makes it clear that the green snakes it usually refers to (which varies a lot, to say the least) are actually not dangerous. Common sense also dictates that no snake could possibly secrete poison through its skin.

2) Given how widely accepted it is, there are no references either that say that it is not real, just obviously questionable 'facts' about it. There is a heavy metal band that erroneously implies that the snake is the most venomous in the world.

It is so accepted in rural areas that the 1928 short story by Arturo Belleza Rotor is about it: Dahong Palay. An 1895 guidebook, Filipinas: Pequeños Estudios; Batangas Y Su Provincia by Manuel Sastrón (it's in Spanish) also mentions it as one of the dreaded local snakes, again without actual evidence.

And again, a government sponsored statistical survey of local fauna (by the DENR) actually lists it among the snake species but do not give an actual scientific name. See Compendium of ENR Information and Statistics, CY 2006 - 2006

So how do you suggest it should be phrased then? If the snake is real then it is an undocumented species, and given how frequently it is mentioned and 'encountered' in Filipino culture, it is a bit unlikely for it to remain unidentified. The conclusion is it's not real, but how do you state that given how many <unscientific> references do say it is?--Obsidi♠n 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you're not interested at all. Anyone else with info on the Dahong Palay and opinions on how best to phrase it on the article? --Obsidi♠n 03:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have other areas of wikipedia I am active on also, Yes I only have a problem with the word Legendary. Perhaps it would be best just to make a note that it is a myth and that it could refer to any of the small green snakes perhaps list one or two possible species with a ref. ZooPro 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited. I still can not find reliable references, I did the best I could with secondhand news articles and primary sources. I also can not simply remove it from the article as the sword is actually said to be named after the snake. It's an essential part of it. The problem lies in the fact that the snake is more folk superstition than an actual species.

I give up. Can't think of any other way to make it clearer that dahong palay does not refer to any one species of snake but to any small green snake perceived to be lethally venomous (whether it actually is or isn't). But I still think it's better than the alternative of claiming that such a snake exists and is dangerous to humans.--Obsidi♠n 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you want project banner on famous herp pages?

I have found several famous herp wikibio pages, and made a couple, lately. Do you want your banner there? Have been putting a biography banner, but can have a subject one too, no worries. Just don't want to put it there, if you are trying to stick to reptiles only, not broader herp topics.TCO (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Got any examples please? Cheers ZooPro 08:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wilmer W. Tanner
• Sherman C. Bishop
• Karl Patterson Schmidt

I would kinda restrict it to people that emphasize herp stuff, rather than general zoology of course. Just asking.TCO (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also see , regarding the rationale for having multiple project banners, "A short article about a prominent scientist, for example, would probably benefit greatly from a project dealing with the scientist's discipline, his area of residence, biographies in general, and potentially even his time period."

You can see how Issac Newton is handled on talk. Again, not pushing, project should do what is fun, what appeals to it. Just asking.TCO (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon go for it, please do me one favour though and rate the articles :P I am about to tackle the list of 1000+ unrated AAR articles and a few less would be great. ZooPro 10:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

List of herpetologists might come in handy. Regards, SunCreator 02:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you help? I want to concentrate more on article content. Will put it up on any that I start, but I don't want to be pounding out a list like that.TCO (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There might be some who are in our article, or at least the daughters btw. Conant and Gibbons jump to mind. Need the little wikilink in refs and all.TCO (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Herp bio chronologies

not much detail, but easy to scan names. http://ebeltz.net/herps/biogappx.html TCO (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As I'm assessing articles...

...I've noticed how many titles are in Latin. In a general encyclopedia, wouldn't these titles be the common name of the animal?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A while ago (in 2008, to be exact), we had a discussion on reptiles that had a ton of common names. It was generally decided that in the absence of one single very commonly used name, it would be better to use the scientific name rather than cause bickering over which common name was better than the other. bibliomaniac15 02:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Have no other alternatives been brought up in the discussions? I don't really mind, it's just that Latin titles can be a bit off-putting to readers.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suggest gradually driving things how you want them. Try to avoid too many direct confrontations, but do more and more with time, and then you have the Project to lend some authority. Can't give orders, you know how this place is. But they do respect Projects on stuff like naming format etc.TCO (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, confrontation isn't what I'm after, just making the best articles possible (man, that almost sounded political). But again, I have no problem with Latin titles, just wondering.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's a single, very common name, just go with the common name. Otherwise, it's better to have redirects to the Latin. bibliomaniac15 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of those probably should be at the scientific names. Animals like the bog turtle have real common names; those names are used very often in discussing the animal. However, lesser-known reptiles are more likely to have "common names" that only exist in a few books and lists, and to be more widely known under the scientific name. In that case, it's better to use the scientific name. Ucucha 12:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the quick answers everyone. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

reptile featured pictures

Not sure you all were aware of this . TCO (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Australia is a strange country

Who ever said frogs and snakes dont get along, Pictured is a green tree frog riding on the back of a red belly black snake during our flood emergency. I think our reptile keepers are still rubbing their eyes in shock. ZooPro 12:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Love it! I wonder what bargain the frog struck with the snake to get that ride. Regards, SunCreator 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's SO funny! They look like they're going downtown to rough up some punks.NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We breed our frogs tough down here. ZooPro 00:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess when it comes to survival, finding a place were you can be safe is a little bit more important than food. Unless you are starving that is. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

working on American herpetologists

Got a hair up my cloaca and have been doing some BLP and BDPs of American herpetologists. Just sharing in case other have ideas or comments. Find a few existing already, find others have lots of incoming redlinks from species they classified or were named after them. Also, that easy to get incoming links from reference sections of articles. Not doing any junk ones, but the ones who had careers and did a lot of stuff. Often there is a Copiea biography to reference. Also, several have French pages, but that the content is improved when worked on in Anglo space.TCO (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ron Tremper would be a good start. Don't know any others. --TangoFett (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Down to 781

We are down to 781 unassessed articles !!!!! Great work everyone keep it up, I think by the end of it I will never want to rate another article ever again :P ZooPro 12:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PS Just wondering what others are doing about templates on the redirect pages?, I have been removing them as there is no use having two templates for one article.ZooPro 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems they should be tagged with class=redirect, but redirecting appears to not be a problem (discussed at WP:BIRD). —innotata 13:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just been deleting redirect talk pages if there isn't any history other than adding the template. bibliomaniac15 18:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Amphibians and Reptiles of Montana

Question. Is this a list or an article? We have it rated as B-class, another project has it as list. Just curious, and a change is likely needed, whether it's us or them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I assessed one of those articles recently. I rated it as a list per the list guidelines. ZooPro 13:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I'll do the same. Thank you. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

New Mexico whiptail lizard

A photo of the New Mexico whiptail lizard(Cnemidophorus neomexicanus) is required for U.S. state reptiles as it's the state symbol for New Mexico. Any suggestions? The current image can't be cropped due to restrictions. Regards, SunCreator 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be cropped? The file description page says that images on Misplaced Pages must allow modification, and this image is no exception. Ucucha 04:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of a good question. I was thinking if was restricted because it's not on commons but reading the labelling it looks okay. Regards, SunCreator 04

33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It is fine to do derivitaves on that. Would like an assist to photoshop the sand over the left nd right images. Cropping would lead to an insane aspect ratio.TCO (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fence Lizard ID

I put a photo of what I think is an Eastern Fence Lizard on the talk page of that article. Can someone positively ID it and perhaps add it to the mating section? It shows the male displaying its orange throat flap.Jstuby (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a Brown anole, and fence lizards HAVE no dewlaps. Anoles and fence lizards are completely different, don't know how you missed that. --TangoFett (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

natureserve as source?

Any perspective on NatureServe as a source? Reliability? HOw to best access info? ARe they some sort of contract research outfit?TCO (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Sauropsida ≠ Reptilia. Not sure if anyone makes that mistake anymore, but just to remind you all. --TangoFett (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Galápagos tortoise

Galápagos tortoise is at FAC, please review and lend your comments/support.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reptilia vs. Sauropsida revisited

Hi again everyone...would the editors of reptile articles mind stopping by Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Taxonomy/Reptilia and contributing to the discussion there? Thanks! Bob the WikipediaN 09:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an impiortant topic I have made a comment at the page, this is an issue that is about the role of WP and understanding it well. Faendalimas (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. state reptiles

FYI, this article is at FLC and has been since 23FEB. TCO (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Snakes, relative venom strength, and LD50

I'm starting this discussion here, because while Inland Taipan was the article where the issue started, it's spread to Eastern brown snake.

The articles have used studies of median lethal dosage in mice as a basis for pronouncing them the most and second-most venomous land snakes. A user has persisted in adding the following disclaimer to the article:

However, due to the fact that snake venom toxicity is not tested on humans, it is difficult to accurately determine what are the world's most drop for drop venomous snakes to humans with complete certainty.

Why is this disclaimer necessary? The article seems to have sufficiently noted the authority that backs up the claim of "most venomous." Has this issue come up before with venomous animals (of which snakes would be one of the more extensively studied groups)? Is that much of a disclaimer necessary in every article that makes a claim of relative venom strength based on animal testing? —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's unnecessary, and I've had extensive talks with this user before on the topic. IMHO, the place for the discussion of test species on LD-50 is on the LD50 page, as it just clutters up the pages of various critters. I've also repeatedly stressed that, even with species differences, LD50 in mice is *far* better than any other method of assessment simply because so many variables can be controlled, while data from human clinical cases has so much uncertainty and so many confounding factors as to be effectively worthless. I thought we'd reached an understanding, but clearly not, so I suggest someone take it up with an admin as a case of WP:AXE. Mokele (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not in LD50 per se, but in that administration route and animal should be specified when discussing LD50 values. Specifically, saying that "snake X is most venomous to humans based on LD50 value" is misleading because it does not mention that this is a bold extrapolation of results obtained on specific species. Even adding "in mice" or "in monkeys" would make it so much different. Materialscientist (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, anything that even says "most venomous" should be deleted on sight. It's the crappy sort of top-10 list based on dubious assumptions and improper understanding that's the staple of shitty TV animal shows, not a supposed reference site.Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I was once asked to help out with a "most venomous snake" article. I helped source it, ad LD50 date and so on, but in the end the plug was drawn on the whole article. The problem is that there are a number of partly quite subjective factors that goes into make a snake more or less venomous. Two obvious factors are toxicity and the amount of venom a snake will use, but there are other less straight forward questions as effectivity of delivery (placement and length of fangs plays a role) and how likely the snake is to bite in the first place.

Notice that LD50 numbers aren't entirely trustworthy either. They often differ when the dose is given under the skin, in muscle or in vicera, telling us that toxins may be specific, and that mouse data may not tell us much other that what snakes do to mice. There are bird-eating snakes whose venom is very effective on birds, but not very dangerous to mammals, so snake venoms can be specific. Taipans and brown snakes are after all primarily mouse eaters, no wonders theiir venoms kill mice easily. Writing that a snake is the worlds most most or or second most venomous snake will be understood as related to humans. Thse statements are scientifically a bit dubious, and I find the disclaimer (or some disclaimer like it) higly appropriate. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought researchers inject the venom to the test animals intravenously (?) If not then it even less indicative because indeed the fang length is a crucial factor when snakes bite different animals - some snakes are harmless to some animals only because of that. Materialscientist (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That's indeed the case! If I remember correctly, the most potent snake venom is that of some sea-snake species. The snake is next to harmless though, as the fangs sits far back in th emouth, and are really only used to subdue small fish on their way down. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, sea-snakes are typical proteroglyphs, like other elapids. The main issue is that their fangs and mouths are very small, so they often fail to get a good bite or don't penetrate the wetsuit.Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I just feel it's tedious to explain this on *EVERY* page, especially when the only context is in LD50 rankings, which as dubious at best and probably shouldn't be included. IMHO, the general gist should be "Species X is a blah blah, living in blah, and is highly venomous, based on a number of human fatalities and a high LD50." It's accurate (LD50, for all its limitations, is a pretty good indicator 99% of the time), but doesn't get needlessly bogged down in details. Then, on the LD50 page, make sure there's a detailed explanation of the limitations and issues. Kinda like how we just say "the adder is a viper" without going into all the details of solenoglyphy and their phylogeny etc., which are on the viper page if needed/wanted by the reader. Mokele (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree putting it on every page would be overkill, but I feel such a warning should be included on pages claiming "this is the most venomous snake in the world", because that is an absolute claim which can't really be backed up. Also, the explanation could be trimmmed down to "... measured by LD50, which is tested on mice and may or may not yild similar results on humans". Or something in that vein.Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of Herping

The article herping has been nominated for deletion here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Herping, for extremely poor and primarily bureaucratic reasons. Given that is a Mid-Importance article representing an extremely widespread practice, I think we need to all show up on that page and prevent the deletion. It's been neglected, but that doesn't mean it needs to get the axe. Mokele (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)