Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Flectonotus and Gastrotheca placement

Hi. I noticed a complaint on an off-wiki platform about :File:BigSNAAAAAAAk.jpg being misused on the article Reticulated python (Malayopython reticulatus). I [https://t.me/Wikipedia_zh_bio_and_med/62249 mentioned] this issue in the zhwiki bio&med Telegram group and a Wikipedian says it's probably a Greater snake (Thamnophis). I have removed the file. I hope Wikipedians from this WikiProject can confirm whether this is a misuse or not, and probably help with a renaming on Commons later on. Thanks.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 05:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Adder has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The gecko genus Dactylocnemis has one formally described member, as well as five well-documented but not formally described members (one of which has a page, and one that I'll likely create soon). In cases like this, should the genus article be split from the species article? --Prosperosity (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

: Until the new species are formerly described and more widely recognised, I'd leave the article at the genus. Some people may question whether there is sufficient coverage of these island species to justify articles.

: Incidentally, the conservation species for Mokohinau gecko doesn't appear to be Nationally Endangered. The citation given doesn't give a conservation status. The latest assessment I could find (from 2021) gives "Naturally Uncommon" (see [https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123951 NZTCS Dactylocnemis "Mokohinau"]). The other island forms are either Naturally Uncommon ([https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123958 Dactylocnemis "Poor Knights"], [https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123963 Dactylocnemis "Three Kings"]) or Declining ([https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123949 Dactylocnemis "Matapia Island"], [https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123954 Dactylocnemis "North Cape"]), while the Pacific gecko species is Not Threatened (see [https://nztcs.org.nz/assessments/123904 Dactylocnemis pacificus (Gray, 1842)].  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

A template for citing NatureServe Explorer has been created. Template:Cite NatureServe. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that Gekkota should be ranked as a suborder instead of infraorder. Because it's weird to have an infraorder that does not belong to any suborder. Sources:

[http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?id=4926271&src=0 Suborder Gekkota - Hierarchy - The Taxonomicon]

[https://biodiversity.org.au/afd/taxa/Gekkota Australian Faunal Directory]

[https://eol.org/pages/2819161 geckos - Encyclopedia of Life]

[https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=564528#null ITIS - Report: Gekkota]

[https://www.nzor.org.nz/names/ce4b96cb-960f-4f16-8c48-36916207d53d NZOR Name Details - Gekkota] Jako96 (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

: Reptile Database used superfamilies, although snakes are also divided into superfamilies.

: Traditionally the Iguania and Schleroglossa were the suborders. But with the modern division into at least five lineages, seven if you split Toxicofera, infraorder was used instead as the groupings of those lineages was uncertain (I forget where I saw this). Infraorders without suborders is used on occasion when the higher taxonomy is uncertain.

: However, the current arrangement needs improving. We have Gekkota and Scincomorpha as infraorders, Anguimorpha, Iguinia and Serpentes as suborders, Lacertoidea as superfamily and Dibamidae at family. The lineages should use the same rank rather than the mixture. However, we need a source for this and finding a rank based taxonomy of reptiles is difficult, unlike the other traditional vertebrate classes. If we can't support either infraorder or suborder with sources, it might be better to use the superclasses superfamilies and use clade on the others.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::Superclass? You sure? Jako96 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Typo for superfamilies. Corrected.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes. I think we should do that too. Then, the subgroups are;

::::Family: Dibamidae

::::Superfamily: Gekkota

::::Superfamily: Scincomorpha

::::Superfamily: Lacertoidea

::::Superfamily: Anguimorpha

::::Superfamily: Iguania

::::Clade: Serpentes.

::::But I think we should give suborder rank to Serpentes. Reptile Database doesn't use a rank for it by the way. Jako96 (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm editing it as you said now. Jako96 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Oh wait, I think we have to discuss it more. Cuz that would be a big change. Jako96 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe we have to ask other editors. Jako96 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Greetings!

I am trying to figure out what is going on with the phenotypically very similar species of Agama in the A. agama complex in West Africa. The English Wikipedia has pages for A. agama, A. africana and A. picticauda, which in some contexts seem to be used interchangeably (e.g. in reference to the established Florida population). Moreover, the A agama article is clearly following a much older taxonomy apparently considering the other two names as synonyms.

The source reference for Squamata seems to have out-of-date info on Agama spp. and Reptile Database and Red List give overlapping info.

I have emailed J-F Trape (the guy who wrote the book on lizards in West Africa( for his thoughts and may update the pages on his advise. But any further advice would be welcome. GRM (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)