Talk:Acanthocercus annectens

	Acanthocercus annectens is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 1 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Acanthocercus annectans to Acanthocercus annectens. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 1 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acanthocercus annectans → Acanthocercus annectens – The majority of taxonomic databases use the spelling "Acanthocercus annectens". (Links are available in the article's taxonbar, at the bottom of the the desktop version of the article). It is true that the spelling "Acanthocercus annectans" is used in Blanford's original description, but the IUCN uses "annectens" and says "annectans" is "orth. error" in the taxonomy section of the assessment. William Avery (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, annectans is used by the Reptile Database, if that makes a difference....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was through the Reptile Database that I found the reference to get back to the original description, and that made me think that annectans should be correct. Then I saw that IUCN said it was an orthographic error, and I looked in Wiktionary and found wikt:annectens, but no wikt:annectans. GBIF has G. annectans and G. annectens, and the latter database entry is a mess showing a synonym of Agama annectans subsp. error. There may be a case for noting the confusion and leaving the article where it is. William Avery (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.