Template talk:Speciesbox#Use with hybrids

{{Edit template-protected|answered=yes}}

Description of suggested change:

I suggest that the 'type_strain' parameter, currently intended for only bacteria, gets renamed to 'type' or 'type specimen', which then could apply to any biological species, not only bacteria. This parameter is used in many protist pages, but their type material is often not a living culture but an electron microscope slide or a similar preparation. Furthermore, this is essential taxonomic information and I believe botanist and zoologist editors alike would appreciate it.

Diff:

{{TextDiff|1=Type strain|2=Type}} — Snoteleks (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Snoteleks}} so how would you use this for a species of plant or animal? Can you give several examples, please, so we can see what might be involved. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::@Peter coxhead I am not experienced in how animal types work, but I know that each plant species has either an illustration or (most likely) a herbarium sheet that is assigned as the type of the entire species. They can all be seen at the IPNI website (though I believe mosses are not considered there) and many at JSTOR Global Plants. For example, the species Eucalyptus phoenix has one holotype MEL 2360702 (the MEL code refers to the National Herbarium of Victoria, and the number string is the specific herbarium sheet), and several isotypes (i.e., copies of the holotype, which become the type if the holotype gets destroyed) stored in other herbaria around the world. If I recall correctly, holotypes are also used in zoology, so it should follow the same logic. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{not done|Not completed}}. Editor {{u|Snoteleks}}, the {{para|type_strain}} parameter is designed only for bacteria; "type strain" is [https://bacdive.dsmz.de/strain/16714 nomenclature specific to bacteria], and to rename it something else would make the parameter ambiguous for bacteria. If you have considered that an additional parameter is needed to note types or holotypes for other organisms, then feel free to start a discussion toward that end. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering if there's a particular way that I should be using the status parameter to indicate whether a IUCN Red List assessment is global or regional. This usually isn't important, but in some cases the Red List only assesses a species within a certain part of its range (eg. Europe), and I feel that this could be valuable information to provide in the speciesbox, especially for species with large ranges that have only been assessed in a select area. Currently, I indicate this in the relevant reference by simply following the recommended citation provided by the Red List, which includes "([insert region] assessment)" in the title. Please let me know if there's a better way of doing this, or if my current method is sufficient. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

: The taxobox should show the global assessment. If the regional one is important it can be discussed in the text. I haven't seen a cases where a regional assessment doesn't have a global one. Have you an example?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:: To answer my own question, there are several frillwort species (see [https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?query=Fossombronia&searchType=species&scopes=2 Fossombronia] (may need to change geographical scope to see regional assessment).  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Yes, certain Fossombriona species are exactly what prompted me to ask this, though they definitely aren't the only examples of species with wide ranges being only assessed in one region. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

: I've added Europe in parentheses to the {{para|status_ref}} parameter with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fossombronia_foveolata&diff=prev&oldid=1254066521 this edit]. Is this a solution?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::I suppose that works, but it doesn't look especially neat. Some sort of dedicated "status_region" parameter that displays "[insert region] assessment" would be the ideal solution in my opinion, if there are no other existing methods for handling regional assessments, but I'm not sure how viable that is. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::: A {{para|status_region}} is a possibility, although would need consensus. How about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fossombronia_foveolata&diff=prev&oldid=1254074894 this version]?  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::::It looks quite good, thank you! That's pretty much how I was picturing a hypothetical "status_region" param. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Long lists of synonyms can be hidden by using {{tlx|Species list}} with {{para|hidden|yes}}. Right now, the subheading that appears to the left of the "[show]" link is centred in the taxobox, e.g. at Populus alba. {{U|Eewilson}} has suggested (at Template talk:Taxon list#Option to justify header?) that it would look better if such a subheading ("List" in this example) was left-aligned. I agree, and am inclined to change {{tlx|Species list}} to make this the default with a hidden list. Comments? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:Sure, would probably look a little more sleek. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

: I had a look with Inspect to change the CSS and agree.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:Well, you know I'm for it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm for it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Ok, I've been bold and changed {{tlx|Species list}}. It will take time for the effect to propagate, but it's ok at Populus alba. Nymphaea alba is an interesting example. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}

Thank you, Peter!!

Nymphaea alba must have been done by an editor after my own heart. It could now nicely use the header parameter for the separate infraspecies names, which is what I like to do. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Eewilson}} actually, I see from the history that I moved the synonyms to the taxobox on 12 July this year, but I'd forgotten that I did it. I hadn't thought of putting the subspecies names as the headers for the lists, but this would be better, I think. However, I'll leave it to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

::Ah, yes. I shall add it to my list. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

::I did that.

::{{u|Peter coxhead}}, Can you add documentation about the header parameter and any other parameters that aren't documented to the {{tl|Species list}}? Or I can, if I can figure it out. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:::Never mind. They are already there and I can't read well when I am asleep. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently, this template only supports {{para|status}} and {{para|status2}}, however, some species have been assessed under more than two of the possible status options - eg. Cladonia perforata and the San Marcos salamander both have statuses on the IUCN Red List, NatureServe, and the Endangered Species Act. In these cases, editors are left to their own discretion choosing which two statuses are worth including in the speciesbox. My preference is to prioritise the Red List and NatureServe assessments over the ESA, but not everyone will agree with me. I don't see any reason we shouldn't be able to include all three though, and would like to see a {{para|status3}} for both the sake of completeness and to avoid conflicts between editors who disagree on which systems should take priority. Thoughts? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Ethmostigmus}} implementing the change requires {{para|status3}}, {{para|status3_system}} and {{para|status3_ref}} to be added to both this template and {{tlx|Taxobox/core}}, which it feeds. If there's a clear consensus, it can be done, but we should always be slow to change {{tlx|Taxobox/core}} with its 473,000+ transclusions.

:I'm on the fence at present. I see the logic of the argument, but is this a slippery slope? Will the next step be allowing four status options? Taxoboxes should not get more and more cluttered. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:: Like you I'm on the fence. I've seen a few cases where three assessments might have been worth showing, but never one where there are four that aren't obviously redundant, so I wouldn't worry about a slippery slope. When the assessments have graphics, the taxobox starts to get cluttered with two (e.g. the examples above) so three with graphics wouldn't look good. On the other hand, one with graphics and a couple of text ones would be fine.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

{{biota infobox |auto=speciesbox

| image = San Marcos salamander.jpg

| status = VU

| status_system = IUCN3.1

|status_ref={{cite IUCN|title=Eurycea nana|last1=Hammerson|first1=Geoffrey|last2=Chippindale|first2=Paul|year=2004|page=e.T8391A12909269|doi=10.2305/IUCN.UK.2004.RLTS.T8391A12909269.en|access-date=29 April 2023}}

|status2=LT

|status2_system=ESA

|status2_ref={{cite web|url=https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6374|website=Environmental Conservation Online System|publisher=U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service|access-date=30 April 2023|title= San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana)}}{{Cite journal |last=USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service|date=14 July 1980 |title=Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; listing of San Marcos salamanders as threatened, the San Marcos gambusia as endangered, and the listing of critical habitat for Texas wild rice, San Marcos salamander, San Marcos gambusia, and fountain darter |url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1980-07-14/pdf/FR-1980-07-14.pdf#page=253|access-date=30 April 2023|journal=Federal Register |volume=45|issue=136|pages=47355–47364}}

| status3 = G1

| status3_system = TNC

|status3_ref={{cite web|title=Eurycea nana|url=https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.106379/Eurycea_nana |website=NatureServe Explorer|access-date=29 April 2023}}

| taxon = Eurycea nana

| authority = Bishop, 1941

}}

::: Here's how it would look (see right). Is it too much?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: The problem for me is that it appears above the classification, which is the core purpose of a taxobox. In your example, you are likely to have to scroll down on a mobile device to get to classification. Maybe if second and third statuses were initially hidden, with a show/hide control? Otherwise it makes the multiple statuses too prominent, taking up too much of the space. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::: Agreed. Perhaps the conservation status should be moved lower down, perhaps after the range maps.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you both for your input!

:::::{{tq|I've seen a few cases where three assessments might have been worth showing, but never one where there are four that aren't obviously redundant, so I wouldn't worry about a slippery slope.}} exactly what I was thinking - if we exclude CITES (which I think is reasonable, given that it takes up so little space in the taxobox - honestly, I would support a {{para|cites}} option separate from {{para|status}}) three is the absolute most I've seen in terms of statuses with a graphic. We have quite a few compatible conservation status frameworks listed at Template:Taxobox/species/doc, and while more than two of these (again, excluding CITES) applying to a single taxon is rare, it does happen. To be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that the legislative statuses like ESA, DEC, and QLDNCA don't really fit well in the speciesbox and are better discussed in the body, but that's just me.

:::::{{tq|one with graphics and a couple of text ones would be fine.}} If the the more niche statuses could be simplified to resemble the CITES statuses, that would certainly reduce clutter, but not sure how feasible/popular that would be.

:::::{{tq|Perhaps the conservation status should be moved lower down, perhaps after the range maps.}} I would generally oppose this, I think conservation status is valuable information and looks best below the image and above classification, but I certainly see your point about clutter. I would definitely prefer making the conservation status section (semi-?) collapsible to moving it below the classification section.

:::::If we want to stick to a limit of two to avoid cluttering the taxobox, I would at least like to establish which statuses should take priority. My personal approach is to prioritise global/international statuses (eg. global Red List assessments) over regional statuses (eg. NatureServe, regional Red List assessments) and NGO-assigned statuses (eg. IUCN and NatureServe) over government-assigned/legislative statuses (eg. ESA). So, for an example of a North American species, my preferred order would be IUCN -> NatureServe -> ESA, or for an Australian species IUCN -> EPBC -> state/territory level legislative status eg. QLDNCA. I generally think country or state/territory/province etc. level statuses don't belong in the speciesbox unless there is no applicable global or regional status. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | ://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aspeciesbox++insource%3A%2Fstatus_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 ) 03:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::: The regional statuses should only be used for endemics. The IUCN status is nearly always the first listed (in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aspeciesbox+insource%3A%2Fstatus_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 70,000 cases]). There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aspeciesbox++insource%3A%2Fstatus2_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 around 200] in status2, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aspeciesbox++insource%3A%2Fstatus2_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F++insource%3A%2Fstatus_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 almost half] are regional or subspecies IUCN assessments with the global IUCN species assessment first. There are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aspeciesbox+insource%3A%2Fstatus2_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F+-insource%3A%2Fstatus_system+%2A%3D+%2AIUCN%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 120 speciesboxes] where the the global IUCN status is second. I think there is a good case for changing the order in these cases

:::::: One solution would be to not show the graphic for the third status, or perhaps even the second (is more than one graphic needed?). If only one graphic was shown, adding the third or fourth status wouldn't take up much space.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::: I support only showing the graphic for the first status. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist talk}}