Talk:Naja annulata

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Naja annulata Mike Cline (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Boulengerina annulata → Naja annulata – New taxonomic research reclassifies Boulengerina annulata as Naja annulata (Research here: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/zt02236p036.pdf and http://www.smuggled.com/AJHI7.pdf) relisting for others' input -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC) SpacedOut84 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment also please add the new research to the article body. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose These two articles are not sufficient evidence. Renaming should not take place till there is evidence that the proposal has widespread support among zoologists. Imc (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Admin comment - the Reptile Project has been notified of this RM and requested to provide some expert input. [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The first paper (Wallach et al, 2009) is a first class primary journal paper, it is also some 3 years old. It has been been peer reviewed by experts in the field. It is also a valid taxonomic revision. Hence it is appropriate to follow the recommendations of this paper. I am with the Amphibian and Reptile Portal and am a professional reptile taxonomist, though I do not work on snakes. The thing with taxonomy is that one should refute it or accept it. Unless there are valid published refutations of the proposed nomenclatural arrangement then it is not our place to refute it. WP is an encyclopaedia and as such must follow the recommendations of the primary literature, failing to do so without referring to a valid refutation is equivalent to personal opinion or original research. The second paper by Hoser (2009) is privately published in a journal owned by the author and has not been peer reviewed. Hence does not carry the weight of the first paper. Therefore, unless someone can find a refutation of Wallach et al., 2009, then I support the move reducing the genus Boulengerina to a sub genus. Also at the least the Wallach et al., 2009, paper should added into the WP page and used as the justification/ reason for the move. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The revision seems solid to me (though I'm ecologist rather than taxonomist). I see no problem in moving as long as the recent revision is noted in the article. The reason for having a separate genus for the water cobras should also be discussed, though possibly in the Naja article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naja annulata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120109073532/http://www.afpmb.org/content/venomous-animals-b to http://www.afpmb.org/content/venomous-animals-b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)