 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Query edit
Done Description and Distribution sections completed.
Is it appropriate to add a section discussing future molecular phylogeny research that could be used to determine whether C. bonita and C. palmeri may in fact be the same species, one form of which is intertidal to 45 m depth and one form of which is found 37 to 73 m depth? Given the new taxonomic tools available we no longer have to rely solely on shell morphology, so these may be the same species. Any thoughts on the propriety of raising the issue as one for future research? Shellnut (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- We can't discuss future molecular phylogeny because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL). For any such discussion, we must give a reliable reference. But we can indicate that the possibility exist, if we can rely on a reference. JoJan (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
JoJan, I guess that what I meant to ask (if somewhat inartfully) was IF we feel that such future research would be appropriate is this the place to say so. For example, C. plameri and C. bonita may in fact be synonyms and merely found at different depths along an overlapping range. The same issue arises with sibling species, which until now could only be discussed as conjecture based upon shell morpholoigy and biogeography. Now we have a great new scientific tool, which could answer a lot of questions. Can we, or should we, mention that possibility? Can or should we mention the possibility of synonomy? Or of sibling species, such as Kellettia kelletti and K. lischkei? OR ... is the WikiProject Gastropods, or these discussion pages, the appropriate forum instead? I do not want to overstep the bounds of propriety on an article, but thisnk these are important topics. Your advice is requested. Shellnut (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Shellnut, the way this works is that we can only report from reliable published sources. If a reliable published source has already commented on the possibility of future research to determine what is what in terms of 2 species or one, then we can quote that source, but we are not allowed to put comments of our own in, no matter how reasonable they might seem to be. Invertzoo (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Invertzoo! Thank you for the clarification on that, it seemed to me to be an issue that was best raised in discussion and not in an Article. I do understand and appreciate why. What types of "reliable published sources" are considered appropriate? For example, some Shell Club magazines have an editorial board like peer reviewed literature, i.e. The San Diego Shell Club, whereas others like "The Cone Collector" have an individual editor and are more of an open forum. I know that major peer reviewed publications like Zoological Scripta and Malacology count, but where do we draw the line? Shellnut (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- In the sciences it would need to be a peer-reviewed publication ( so for example, Festivus would count) or in some cases it could be a secondary source (e.g. The New York Times) referring back to a peer-reviewed publication. Anything that seems even a little dubious, I would say no. Invertzoo (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)