Talk:Rhynchocephalia

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. Note the category and template need renaming, but I wasn't sure what the correct term was. Jenks24 (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Sphenodontia → Rhynchocephalia – My rationales are: 1. The name Rhynchocephalia (Günther, 1867) has priority over the name Sphenodontia (Williston, 1925).
2. Both names aren't phylogenetically defunct, and have different definitions (so they can't be synonymous).
3. Rhynchocephalia is more inclusive than Sphenodontia, and the former contains the later.
4. Although Sphenodontia is used more often, it is probably due to the fact that only some analyses include Gephyrosaurus as an ingroup taxon, and Rhynchocephalia currently composed only of Gephyrosaurus and Sphenodontia.
5. Other reptiles (not related to Sphenodon, such as rhynchosaurs) were removed a long time ago from Rhynchocephalia. (although I think we should discuss the complex history of Rhynchocephalia somewhere). Relisting and notifying WT:AAR. Favonian (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC). Rnnsh (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support At least one recent paper on the taxonomy of these animals explicitly endorses the use of Rhynchocephalia over Sphenodontia for some of the above reasons. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Support If the name has priority then it should be used. I would recommend citing some recent taxonomic reviews that support this however. Cheers. Faendalimas ^talk 18:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: I know of at least six papers and as noted above the two taxa are not synonymous (in these papers, and in any case Rhynchocephalia has priority over Sphenodontia). I'll add the refs tomorrow. Rnnsh (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

And of course, I support the move. Rnnsh (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If the two terms refer to distinct clades, why not make different articles for them? The Code does not mandate priority for names above the family group, and if the terms are not synonyms anyway, it seems especially odd to use priority as an argument. Ucucha (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We can make different articles for them, it will be even better, but the clade that is described in this article is actually Rhynchocephalia. Additionally, many clades are redirected to other clades on wikipedia, even when they aren't synonymous... Rnnsh (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. The clades are barely distinct if the only difference between them is Gephyrosaurus, so I don't think there's much sense in making two different articles. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:54, 26 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.

Mixup in the Cladogram of Rhynchocephalia

There appears to be an overlap between genus names of a reptile and an insect as Opisthodontia is properly cited but the wikipedia article it links to is a type of Moth.

Fixed for now. It seems this is a preoccupied name and may need to be replaced, though the ICZN does't govern taxa higher than family level. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

yeah if an above family name is a homonym it will have to be dealt with by a taxonomist working on that group, and published accordingly. Hopefully someone actually bothers with it. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 11:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dinoguy2 I have asked a colleague for an opinion on how best to handle this, he is an ICZN commissioner. Faendalimas ^talk 11:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dinoguy2 hey got a response for you I thought it best to check to be sure. Names do not cross rank boundaries, hence these are not homynyms. Also names outside of family are not governed by the code. So nothing wrong with this nomenclaturaly, we will just have to come up with a way to deal with the issue in Wikipedia, so I suggest a dissambiguation. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So, basically like the situation with Chelonia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

One or Two Species?

As far as I know, there are now considered to be fairly undoubtedly two species of tuatara, and the claim that there is only one species conflicts with the Tuatara article. ~Lord Marcellus 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Sphenodontia

While the English articles have been merged successfully, there are links in other languages only pointing to one of the wikidata items (like Czech). When I tried to merge using the Merge Gadget or Special:Merge, I encountered a conflict regarding French wiki, but it already has a redirect. Therefore I request help of some more experienced editors to complete the merge. It has been resolved that Rhynchocephalia and Sphenodontia are one and the same, as acknowledged by the English and French wikis, but it still has two separate wikidata items and several other translations point to one of the two versions. In other words, the problem is that it has two wikidata items, with roughly half of the translations pointing to one item (Rhynchocephalia) and the other half to the other item (Sphenodontia), while it is one and the same. The problem seems to be the French wiki, but it has a redirect. I have been unable to do the merge myself, so I ask here for help. Vít Matějíček (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

screenshot of the problem

Phylogram of DeMar 2022

Hemiauchenia since you have been editing this I will just comment and leave it to you. The Phylogram by DeMar et al 2022 is not very good, is too large for the page and covers many irrelevant taxa. The CI and RI are excessively low and the whole thing collapsed under bootstrap. Only one clade has a Bremer of 1 the rest are either around 0.5. Yes I have the paper. I would suggest a simplified phylogeny based on more reliable material. The DeMar paper was aiming to describe a new taxon from the USA not really delve into the topic of this Wiki Page and over the course of time his species will be either accepted or rejected by science (most likely after extensive revision by others), but it shouldnt really be on this page. You can certainly simplify the more ancestral linneages that are not directly related to the TuaTara and its close relatives. Just a suggestion the current phylogeny looks bad. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Just an addit, the Phylogeny by Simoes et al 2022 is just as recent, better resolved less polytomys and presents the necessary taxa I would say just use that one, leave the other as a discussion point and link to the paper as you have done. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: The whole phylogeny of Rhynchocephalia, across basically all studies is poorly resolved, especially those of the advanced neosphenodontians, so this isn't really unique problem to this paper, unfortunately. I really would like a cladogram that properly demonstrates the clade Acrosphenodontia and the distinction between Rhynchocephalia and Sphenodontia, given that they are discussed in the text. Would the cladogram in the Wirtembergia paper [1] be a usable replacement for this? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Is that Rainer R Schoch and Hans-Dieter Sues 2018?? I cannot access that paper and do not have it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: No, the paper "The oldest known rhynchocephalian reptile from the Middle Triassic (Ladinian) of Germany and its phylogenetic position among Lepidosauromorpha" was published in Wiley earlier this year. You should have access to it through The Wikipedia Library I am happy to email you a copy of the paper if you need me to do that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia ahh got it. Side note your brackets are unbalanced on the cladogram the last command style=font-size:85%; line-height:85% is showing after the tree. Anyway if you want the deeper clades I guess you may have to work with it a bit. You may wish to do that as a discussion to avoid any synth arguments from people. I wouldnt I have no issues with synthesising a usable tree from several sources but it needs to be discussed or someone will pull you up on it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 20:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)