Talk:Pit viper

	Pit viper 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nepal Low‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Opening heading

Bothrops atrox is not a fer-de-lance. Bothrops atrox is known in English as the common lancehead or yellow-jawed lancehead and localy as Barba ammirilla. Bothrops lanceolatus is the ONLY fer-de-lance.

Geetings, oh nameless one! As far as I'm concerned, you're right. However, you have to remember that "fer-de-lance" is just a common name, so I don't see that it really matters. After all: common names are not precise. As long as we get taxonomy right, the truth will eventually follow. As a matter of fact, if it turns out that this common name is often used for other species of the same genus as well, it would probably be a good idea to make a disambiguation page for it. --Jwinius 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Rattlesnake" article

Jwinius: If you object so strenuously to the existence of the rattlesnake article, I suggest you go and propose that it be deleted. Until you manage to do that, there should be at least one link from this article to that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.162.41 (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I object to the existence of the rattlesnake article. What I object to is linking to it in this case. It is simply not logical to do so within the context of the statement, the subject of which is specifically the genus Crotalus. Following the name of the genus is a set of parentheses enclosing its only common name: rattlesnakes. Unfortunately, this name is ambiguous and when wikilinked, leads to a general article that covers both the genera Crotalus and Sistrurus. "Rattlesnake" is an article for people who want to know more about both of these genera when treated as a single group, but it might as well be a disambiguation page. Therefore, simply linking to the rattlesnake article for its own sake is not helpful in this context. --Jwinius (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you do object to the existence of the "rattlesnake" article. Fine. Go delete it then (or turn it into a disambiguation page, as you suggest).

Actually, according to the manual of style for this subject area, this article should be a redirect to pit viper. Baron Trask of Traskon (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't object to the existence of the "rattlesnake" article. I've even considered fixing it up as there is simply a demand for it. However, the last time Crotalus/rattlesnakes were regarded as a single taxonomic entity was back in the 1800s, before Sistrurus was established. I continue to object to your current approach simply because it makes no sense: "Rattlesnakes" do not equal "Crotalus." As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to mention "rattlesnakes" in this article as long as its done in a logical manner. For instance, in the Habitat section, it could be said that "rattlesnakes" are found in the hot and arid regions of North America, although they are not restricted to them.

So, if you're willing to do your homework and add information of value to these articles (and there's plenty to be done), citing your references as you go, then fine, be my guest, you're welcome to it! On the other hand, if you don't want to work together and just want to make yourself unpopular, then you're not going to get any of my help. --Jwinius (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say "rattlesnakes=Crotalus"; it says Crotalinae includes the "rattlesnakes" along with other genera (both genera of "rattlesnakes", which grouping AFAIK doesn't actually have a scientific name, but exists in the popular mind as "those snakes with rattles on their tails"); and the group "rattlesnakes" in turn includes (not "is" or "is limited to") genus Crotalus--which is significant if only because Crotalus is the type genus for the sub-family. Etymologically speaking, these are the "rattlesnake-like snakes". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.64.67 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this context there is nothing special about the rattlesnakes. They merely represent two of a total of 18 genera in the subfamily Crotalinae. The only thing that they have over all the other genera is that the genus Crotalus happens to be the type genus for the entire subfamily. But anyway, if it's really that important to you to have "rattlesnakes" included in the introduction, then it is possible to do it in a way that is logical and does not seem forced. See the latest version of the article... --Jwinius (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crotalinae → Pit viper – See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) -- re: when to use most widely used common name.Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Its accuracy sometimes is 0.0002% ???

"Its accuracy sometimes is 0.0002%" implies that whatever they are talking about, the snake is very very inaccurate.

71.139.165.140 (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, it reads like an unsupported factoid, and is an incredible enough figure to warrant a citation and further exposition. --86.28.211.38 (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]