Jump to content

Talk:Reptile/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Split this article into separate pieces

This article is confusing as hell. What is the topic? Is it an attempt to describe various answers to the questions "What is a reptile?" Or is it a description of Sauropsids?

This should be TWO ARTICLES--at least. One article should be about the Sauropsids. The other should be about Reptiles and Reptilia and all the problems associated with it.

Does anyone agree with this? I feel like the ongoing issues with this article all stem from the fact that this article should be split to begin with.

Denn333 08:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Comments

The page states that reptiles do not have color vision. This is flat out wrong. Many reptiles, other than snakes, have better color vision than the few mammals with color vision.Gotham Spartan 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this page must discuss the problems with classifying DNA :). The traditional classification of reptiles excluded birds; however the modern way of classifying animals depends on cladistics and DNA analysis. This newer information proves that external appearances can often be misleading; birds are just as closely related to other groups within reptiles as other reptiles are related to each other. As such, modern day classification is in the process of reclassifying these organisms. RK

What does "From this point of view, the reptiles are simply the basal amniotes, and so are not a valid group." mean? According to the article on amniotes, mammals and birds are also amniotes, so the amniotes are a monophyletic group, yes...? -- Oliver P. 11:44 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Amniotes are a valid group, but basal amniotes are not. I've altered the text to try reflecting this. Also, I've taken out the bit about how the classification changed because new discoveries suggested certain reptiles were closer to birds. This has been understood for a long time, the change is that paraphyletic groups have not been discouraged until recently. User:Josh Grosse

Thank you for clarifying that. Sorry, I think I must have ignored the word "basal" there because I wasn't sure what it meant. But I understand the article as it is now. -- Oliver P. 15:07 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

RK, your paragraph was good, but the problem isn't new ideas about relationships - birds and mammals have been considered descendants of reptiles for over a century. The problem is new ideas about classification (i.e. that paraphyly isn't monophyly). I've changed the text to reflect this. Josh

"Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience. Every reasonable attempt should be made to ensure that material is presented in the most widely accessible manner possible. If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." (from WP:MTAA) This WP policy can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but it really is most important in the introduction to an article. There, jargon such as "amniotes" should be avoided if at all possible. I still have seen no good reason to keep this highly technical word in place here. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a specialized journal. According to Wikipedia itself, all amniotes are "animals", so why not use "animals" in the intro? Amniotes, a type of animal, will then be mentioned in the body of the article. Jack B108 (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Because accuracy takes precedence over clarity. Your proposed wording is "Reptiles, or members of the (Linnaean) class Reptilia, are air-breathing, generally "cold-blooded" (poikilothermic) animals whose skin is usually covered in scales or scutes." According to your proposed text, the following animals are "reptiles" - mudskippers, garfish, some catfish, caecelians, lungfish, velvet worms, centipedes, earthworms, roundworms, and some sponges. I agree that the intro *does* need work, but your proposed edit introduces a colossal inaccuracy. Mokele (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

First, in the interest of accuracy, let me note that your use of the word "accuracy" is incorrect. Unless you are claiming that reptiles aren't animals, your use of the word "inaccuracy" is a mistake. The word for the concept you are discussing is "precision".
Second, I disagree with your priorities. I don't think that the lead section must, in explaining the topic, distinguish it in every possible way from everything else at the expense of the more casual reader's understanding. It's more important to let the casual reader to know up front that a pig is mammal than it is to let a zoologist know in the first paragraph that the pig is an ungulate while leaving the casual reader adrift, and the zoologist can get more details further on in the article. On the other hand, I don't see why the lead section can't do both, saying that a reptile is an animal, and then, in the next sentence, "It is an amniote." Or, to cover all bases, why it can't say "an air-breathing, generally 'cold-blooded', terrestrial egg-laying animal with skin that is usually covered in scales or scutes". There are all kind of ways to handle it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not trying to be a dickhole, but not all reptiles lay eggs.  :) In all seriousness, though, the Lede is supposed to summarize the main points of the article, so if anything it fails on that criteria alone.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
"Summarize" doesn't mean "while using fewer words, make every single point that was made in the expanded version". It isn't necessary for the lead section to be so complete that the expanded section is redundant. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
First, read Accuracy_and_precision - the suggested change is inaccurate because it fails to reflect reality, as well as being imprecise, because the scope of the terms is so broad. Learn what words mean before chastising others for their use.
I do know what the words mean, and you apparently don't, since now it seems you are claiming that it is contrary to reality to say that reptiles are animals. I'm afraid I find no reason to read further. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Good, maybe we'll get some input from people who have a clue what they're talking about.
Second, you are utterly failing to grasp my argument, which is extraordinarily simple - the proposed text is so inclusive that it's useless. Actually read the whole sentence. As it currently exists, only reptiles fall into that category with dealing with extant diversity, with some minor slop in categorizing extinct species (not unusual in any scheme). As proposed, it is so broad as to be useless, because it includes a huge variety on non-amniote (and even invertebrate) taxa. Consider the intro text to Bird, "Birds (class Aves) are winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), egg-laying, vertebrate animals." Your version of the text would read "Birds are animals with wings." While that does describe birds, it also describes bats, insects and pterosaurs (as well as, to a lesser extent, gliding animals of all forms). You are proposing the same thing - your alteration makes the definition ridiculously and inaccurately broad.
Third, I am *not* in any way opposed to improving the wording. I agree it needs to be done. I just think this particular edit is stupid.
Lastly, the problem is that "reptiles" have always been defined by exclusion - any amniote which isn't a bird or a mammal. Leaving aside the problems of monophyly vs paraphyly (in which case both birds and mammals are types of reptiles), this means that reptiles are largely defined by plesiomorphies, characters inherited from their ancestral state, such as "cold blood", scales, air-breathing, etc. This is problematic, because if you define them only by these terms, you wind up including a LOT of things under "reptile" that simply aren't (see my list above). In order to have any meaning, you need a synapomorphy, a newly evolved trait that all reptiles share but which was never developed by their ancestors. Unfortunately for the readers, these tend to be very technical (loss of particular skull bones, architechture of the vertebral centra, etc.), and the amniotic egg is actually the *least* technical and inaccessible. Mokele (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
All this being right and true, the lede could use a bit of work. Would it be a idea to start off with something like the Norwegian version (here's a rough translation, not all Norwegian terms are directly translateable):
Reptiles are cold blooded land living vertebrates covered with scales or scutes. Phylogenetically they represent all amniotes that are not birds or mammals. The term "reptile" comes from Latin repere - to crawl, referring to the sprawling gait or lack of limbs in modern reptiles.
Or something like that. Petter Bøckman (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Plesiosauria

Should the order Plesiosauria be added to the list of orders of the class Reptilia? The Plesiosaur belongs to the order Plesiosauria. DarthVader 08:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Dinosauria

We need a decision here on whether Dinosauria is a superorder under the class Archosauria or the class Reptilia. It is ridiculous because Saurischia says Reptilia and then Eoraptor says Archosauria. A decision either way is fine with me. DarthVader 08:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe Archosauria (modern birds and ancient dinosaurs) are considered a reptiles, but not in class Reptilia. This is based on discoveries by Chinese scientists in the last 20 years or so which planted birds squarely in the dinosauria suborder, combined with the wish to differentiate modern 'reptiles' and modern 'birds' into different classes. If you look at the bird page it has been classified as in the class Archosauria, suporder Dinosauria. According to the Archosaur article the word is Greek for "ruling reptiles", so dinosaurs are still reptiles just not common reptiles. --Zenyu 12:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

No factual changes to the article. Some rewording; comments about metabolic heat, hatchling care, "warm-blooded" animals and speed. Made various words into links. And...

There was a terrible traffic accident. One tortoise had plowed into the side of another one at an intersection. In the flashing lights from an ambulance, a policeman came over to interview a bystander, a snail sitting on the curb.
"What happened?" asked the cop.
"I don't know. It all happened so fast... it was just a blur." David Shear 00:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Plea For Standardization

So far, looking through pages for various reptile lineages, I've found class Reptilia, class Sauropsida, class Archosauria, and class Aves. Various archosaurs are listed under each of these classes--birds obviously are aves, dinosaurs and pterosaurs are currently Archosauria, crocodiles are Reptilia, and the entyr for Archosauria itself is Class Sauropsida! This is needlessly confusing. Someone, maybe one of the WikiProjects, needs to take charge and find some kind of standardization for reptile taxonomy that won't result in an edit war. I know people who work in each of these areas like to have the class rank favor their critters, but until Wikipedia switches to cladistics (which I don't think it should, really), we need to find common ground. Personally, I think Class Saurposida for reptiles>mammals and class Synapsida for reptiles<mammals seems pretty fair. Maybe keep Class Mammalia for crown synapsids and Class Aves for crown dinosaurs. Dinoguy2 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life have given support to the use of Benton's taxonomy]. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to 'be bold' and start changing class Reptilia to Class Sauropsida. Dinoguy2 03:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

A few reptile images

Image:Lacerta aigilis.jpg

  • Danish picture of a sand lizard (Lacerta Aigilis)

Danish viper

  • Danish picture of a viper.

Image:Black_Viper_Head.jpg

  • Head of a Black Viper.

Those are nice Images, and I'd like to see them in articles. However, I have little knowledge about reptiles, so I won't add them myself, sadly. vidarlo 14:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Paraphyletic vs. monophyletic

This might be easier to understand with a picture of the tree of vertebrates (or at least reptiles, birds and maybe mammals). The easiest way for me to understand the issue was to realize that crocodiles are in fact more closely related to birds than to turtles. Does anyone think this should somehow be integrated? Lukas 22:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia needs a template that draws evolutionary trees, much like the timeline functionality. - Samsara contrib talk 02:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This can sort of be done already, using an ascii cladogram like the one here [1], and would look like this:
Sauropsida 
 ├─Lepidosauria
 └───Archosauria
        ├─Crocodilia
        └───Aves
The problem is it's a real pain and kind of tedious to build from scratch like that, so yeah, a template would be fantastic.Dinoguy2 03:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)h.u.m/p

Peer review of tuatara

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Dear All,

Since some of you may be interested in the subject, I would be delighted to hear your feedback on the current state of the tuatara article. Direct link. Many thanks.

Samsara contrib talk 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)how does a tuatra reprduce

Digestive?

Can anyone make a section reptiles' digestive and/or circulatory system(s)? I'm not an expert, so i know i can't. Lbr123 04:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Add Smithsonian link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian's Center for Education, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Reviled and Revered: Toads, Turtles, Snakes, and Salamanders" is available at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/herps/start.html

If you think the audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

Information’s link?

Sri Lanka Reptile Database http://www.srilankareptile.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilupulcool (talk • contribs) 14:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Why do links to Sauropsida lead to the Reptilia page? They are different taxa. Sauropsida has always included birds, while Reptilia traditionally has not. Even in phylogenetic taxonomy, although they have similar content, Sauropsida is a stem-based clade which includes Reptilia, a node-based clade.

It doesn't link to Reptilia, it links to Reptile, which is a common name. Just as Aves links to Bird, which is not the name of any clade. Wikipedia guidelines say that article titles should be common name,s not scientific names, wherever possible. Also, the reptile and dinosaur wikiprojects follow Benton's taxonomy, in which Class Aves ("birds") is separated from Class Sauropsida ("reptiles"). Anyway, many (if not most) Sauropsida-Reptile redirects have been switched to just sauropsida by now, by people who disagree with my logic here. ;) Dinoguy2 13:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
But the verncaular term for Sauropsida is "sauropsid", not "reptile". Benton's scheme is not in common use and is in direct violation of the original (and still more popular) meaning of Sauropsida, anyway. If Wikipedia must use Linnaean ranks (which I disagree with, but that's another issue), they should use Classis Reptilia--it's a far, far more common practice.
I argued for this initially but there was some very vocal opposition that wanted the term reptile banned from use around here. You might want to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, as it's a more active group and many members were involved in the original debate. I still prefer Class Reptilia over Sauropsida, for what it's worth. I think having seperate pages for Sauropsid and Reptile is redundant and confusing to the average reader. If anything, the term Sauropsid should be discussed in the taxonomy section of Reptile.Dinoguy2 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If you go to the page on Avialae, a clade which contains birds and their most closely related dinosaur relatives, they are indeed under the class "Reptilia". I don't think they always considered birds to be reptiles, but they do now. I think they restructured things so that dinosaurs would be considered reptiles as well. But this calls into question the beginning of this article: reptiles are "...cold-blooded amniotes..." If birds are considered in the Reptilia family, then all members of Reptilia are not cold-blooded. Thus, this part is, by logic, incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.73.185 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Ths article is about Reptilia as a class. It is paraphyletic (which is made abundantly clare through the article), and do not contain the birds, rather "birds has risen from reptilian stock" to paraphrase Romer. The same really goes for mammals, though cladisticans do not like it mentioned. If one wishes for the clade containing reptiles, you can choose Sauropsida or Amniota, bout amply covered in their own articles.Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Classification References

I found an interesting one. Anyone with access to the journal care to add this info in?

Modesto, S.P. (2003). "The Phylogenetic Definition of Reptilia". Systematic Biology. 53 (5). Society of Systematic Biologists: 815–821. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Shrumster 07:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of extinct reptiles?

I noticed that there is a list of reptiles, that includes living reptiles only. Would it be a good idea to also have a list of extinct reptiles, similar to how there are lists of extinct mammals and birds? 71.217.98.158 19:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sauropsida or Reptilia?

What's the deal with listing the class as "Sauropsida"? Doesn't that include birds? The basic fact is that it's entirely impossible to combine Linnaean classification with cladism with any consistency. Reptiles are a paraphyletic group, and the class name for them is "Reptilia." Whether this is a "valid" taxonomic group seems like the wrong question to ask - the traditional classifications just don't work if you insist on monophyletic groups, and trying to pretend it does just leads to confusion. If we are discussing Reptiles as a group excluding birds, which is exactly what we are doing in this article, we should call them "Reptilia." john k 05:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, actually, but early on there was a lot of resistance to this--not sure if changing it back now would fly. Something to bring up at Wikiproject:Reptiles or Dinosaurs (which is probably more active). Also, we agreed quite a while back to follow Benton's taxonomy. He uses Sauropsida as a paraphyletic group that excludes birds, so as synonymous with the then-contentious Reptilia (and paraphyletic Class Synapsida for the stem mammals). If you can propose another, comprehensive Amniote classification that would work better, I'd be very open to having a look. Dinoguy2 05:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, my basic feeling on subjects like this is that Wikipedia is far too eager to embrace the newest trends, and that a staid reversion to traditional classifications, with some discussion of why newer literature casts doubt on them, is better than trying to incorporate the newest stuff into the way we actually organize things. Taxonomy is basically an artificial discipline, an attempt to impose classifications and discrete identities onto chaotic, continuous phenomena. As such, I'm not sure why there's any particular need for a "comprehensive Amniote classification." If I must provide one, I'd suggest that for every article on taxonomic groups that conveniently fit into Linnaean schemes, the table simply give the traditional Linnaean categories - Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Reptilia or Aves, and then whatever Order...articles on other terms could explore the various groups used without attempting to impose a false consistency on them, or squeeze them into Linnaean taxon types when there is absolutely no general agreement as to what level they fall under. The basic fact of this issue is that there is no generally agreed upon scheme for classifying all of these various groups. There is a traditional Linnaean scheme that is generally agreed upon to be somewhat misleading, and then there are a variety of postulated schemes that not everybody really agrees on. As such, it seems to me that the best way to proceed is to stick with tradition as much as possible for the basic structuring of our coverage, and to deal with newer hypotheses in article text. john k 07:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bumping in late. We all know (roughly) how the phylogenetic tree looks. We all know there are schools who would like to move away from the artificial and sometimes inconsistence system of Linnean classification, into a system with strict cladistic classification. Some even want to do away with the levels (family, orders etc). And there are die-hard traditionalists. The question is what will best serve Wikipedia.
In the Norwegian Wikipedia (where most of my contributions are), the level-free system has been embraced. This has led to a few very unfortunate results, one being that two closely related species might have widely dissimilar phylogeny listed in the taxobox, so much so that a layman reading about them would think they where entirely unrelated. I find this in the English Wikipedia too (though to a lesser degree), where phyloboxes of archosaurian groups list them as belonging to the class Sauropsida, while the remaining reptiles have boxes listing them as belonging to the class Reptilia.
Using the newer Sauropsida will bring Wikipedia up to date with Benton, but will make the layman (who no doubt would expect to see Reptilia) uneasy. The opposite would cater to the non-specialists, but would go against Benton, and no doubt irritate the grade-allergic cladisticians. So, this may seem to boil down to a question of whom we make Wikipedia for, the layman or the expert.
But no, we may choose to serve bout! We are in the fortunate situation that we do not have to restrict ourselves to a few lines as possible as in a traditional lexicon. We may, if we feel like it, write a 10 page article on the finer points of dinosaur systematics, citing all the relevant pros and contras to Sauropsida and Reptilia. The question is really what we put in the classification part of the taxobox.
If I’m not fully mistaken, the taxobox is there to provide a quick overview. Dinoguy, or me or some of the other people with a bit of knowledge about dinosaur phylogeny do not need the taxobox, we can probably cite its content in our sleep if need be. Thus the classification in the taxobox is there to offer overview to the laymen. As such, I strongly feel Wikipedia will be better served by using the simplified and sometimes inconsistent classical system (including the more popularly known and used Reptilia) there, saving the cladistic to the main text, where it can be embroidered to ones hearts content. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that logic. Sauropsida has been confusing to people since we implemented it and apparently still is--the fact that we're now using to contradictory schemes is even more confusing. The taxobox is designed for the layman. People wanting a more in-depth discussion of classification differences can (gasp!) read the actual text. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose just changing the taxoboxes won't be a very constructive way of going about it. Whom do we need to talk to establish some sort of consensus? Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
IIRC, there already is consensus, established on the reptile and amphibian project talk page, in favor of reptilia. Mokele (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, great! According to [[2]] Reptilia should be used. Thanks for the clarification! Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've started editing the taxo-boxes, and it's a bit of work. I quickly gave up on dinosaurs, sticking to living reptiles. This is going to take ages to edit manually... Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It should be possible to set up a bot or modify the template to accomplish this. Bring it up on WP:Reptiles though. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reptile orders

Why are not dinosaurs included in the list of surviving reptile orders? They are part of sauropsida, and not extinct (birds).Narayanese 13:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below. Scorpionman 01:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Birds are a type of reptile under some systems, but not in the system that uses ranks such as "order". In that system they are removed from dinosaurs as their own class. Dinoguy2 08:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

BIRDS????

This article says that birds are reptiles! That is flat-out wrong! How on earth can you say such idiotic nonsense?? Scorpionman 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In cladistic classification, birds are reptiles. In Linnean classification, they're not. The taxobox uses the Linnean classification system, so birds aren't listed. But the cladistic system is just as important and more widely used nowadays, so of course it should be discussed... Dinoguy2 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How are they reptiles? Because they were supposed to have evolved from dinosaurs? Or is it because they have scales on their legs? In that case, cats are rodents because they have tails. Scorpionman 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read up on how phylogenetic taxonomy works, and how it's different from other kinds of taxonomy, especially Linnean biological taxonomy. Linnean classification seperates things into categories based on key features. Mammals are mammals because they have hair and milk. Reptiles are reptiles because they're cold blooded and have scales. Birds are birds because they fly and have feathers. Phylogenetic classification works absolutely nothing like this. It's a totally different system, based purely on evolutionary lineages. So, yes, birds are reptiles because they evolved from reptiles. Sparrows are birds because they evolved from birds. Humans are synapsids because we eolved from synapsids. It's a "russion nesting doll" model, rather than a model based on categories. Cats are not rodents because they did not evolve from rodents. Obviously, this does not work really well for actually describing categories, which is why I personally still prefer Linnean classification in some situations (like the taxobox). But almost all paleontologists and many scientists who study modern animals and plants have totally or partially abandoned Linnean in favor of phylogenetic, so it would be good to learn as much as you can about it! Dinoguy2 03:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thism ight actually be a really simple way to think about it: Classification units ("taxa") in each system have different names. There are many names for units in Linnean (Kingdom, phylum, class, etc.), only one unit name in phylogenetics (clade). Birds are members of the CLADE Reptilia but not the CLASS Reptilia. Dinoguy2 03:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If Birds are a member of the Clade Reptilia but not the class Reptilia, is this wikipedia article about the class or the clade? It makes a major difference. The beginning of this article states that reptiles are "cold-blooded amniotes" but the last time I checked, birds are warm-blooded amniotes. So what's it to be, gentlemen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.255.73.185 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This page is about the class. Once the two become synonomized, we'll re-do the page, but I highly doubt that'll happen any time soon. Mokele (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I see. That's more understandable. Scorpionman 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think should be two articles. One about reptilians as a paraphyletic group and the other about Sauropsida as a clade. The same done with Crustacea and Pancrustacea. Sobirà 12:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pancrustacea and Crustacea are two different clades, not two names for the same clade. Neither are paraphyletic when using the cladistic system. Reptilia and Sauropsida describe the same group in cladistics, and Benton 2004 (which this article currently follows) treats them as synonyms in even a Linnean sense. Most groups can be described differnetly as a taxon or a clade, that's why many article have a systematics section divided into Classification or Taxonomy (describing the group in a Linnean sense) and a Phylogeny section (describing the group in a cladistic sense). No need for seperate articles. Dinoguy2 14:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No need of paraphyly mark when cladistics sources use Sauropsida clade. Crustacea wich is paraphyletic with Hexapoda is a taxon, no a clade. Sobirà 18:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
But it's not a clade here, it's a Class. That's what it says in the taxobox. It it were a clade, it would say (unranked). The class Sauropsida is paraphyletic. If you want to not use it as class, it needs to be replaced with Reptilia on all reptile taxoboxes, and then a seperate page can be made for Sauropsida. Dinoguy2 01:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have all raised interesting points, but I should just point out that even Linnean taxonomy is ultimately based on evolution. There are levels of genetic divergence that constitute taxonomic divergences at the various Linnean ranks, and a clade, while it does account for the existence of common ancestors at various points, does not quantify the amount of genetic change at each divergence. That being said, Linnean taxonomy can be modernized as Linnean taxonmy, and it is in many sources. In fact, a Linnean-style rank of Domain was added above Kingdom long after Linnaeus' time.

By the way, dinosaurs had 4-chambered hearts and were probably warm blooded, and the genetic changes required for the necessary proteins probably made them NOT reptiles in the modernized Linnaean system, even if they remain reptiles cladistically. I just thought that I should throw that out there, since several dinosaur orders are mentioned in the article, near the place where birds are mentioned.

I should also point out that based on the very first species, the common ancestor of the entire biosphere, ALL life is cladistically part of/associated with an extinct Kingdom (within the otherwise surviving Domain Bacteria) that didn't even have DNA, and instead used single-stranded nucleic acids for its main genetic material. So, there will always be somewhat of a place for key characteristics and levels of divergence. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.4 (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference between the Linnaean and cladistic classification is really one of semantics, not of phylogeny. No-one is in doubt as to how the family tree looks here, only how to express it. The Linnaean "dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds" and the cladistic "dinosaurs contain birds" are factually the same, they express the same topography of the phylogenetic tree. This article is about the Linnaean class, the term Sauropsida is covered in it's own article.
It should also be noted that this article is not Reptilia as described by Benton. Benton may be extremely influential in palaeontology, but his systematics virtually unknown outside those circles. This article covered Reptilia sensu Palaentologists Cuvier, Owen, Darwin, Huxley, Romer, Colbert and Carroll and just about any biologists you'd care to mention. In short, this article is about "reptiles" as commonly understood. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware that the Class Reptilia itself diverged from the Class Amphibia, and that the Classes Aves and Mammalia both later diverged from the Class Reptilia. I know no one is disputing that. What I was pointing out with that extinct bacterial Kingdom was that the entire biosphere is ultimately a single monophyletic clade. See LUCA for an idea of what I'm talking about with that part. The common ancestor within that extinct bacterial Kingdom was also the common ancestor of the entire biosphere, and presumably that first species itself started with a single individual, the phospholipid protobiont that became the very first organism when just the right RNA strand fell inside it to start the appropriate reactions. (The Unicellular Adam, as I sometimes call it.)
Knowing that the Domains Archaea and Eukarya both diverged from the Domain Bacteria, just as the Class Aves later diverged from the Class Reptilia, I'm saying that calling birds reptiles is like calling all life bacteria. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.152 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My comment wasn't aimed at you, 209.183.183.152, it was a general comment. And yeah, you are right, cladistically we're all a subclade of fancy chemistry. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sauropsida

Is this basically right?

The reptile group is not a clade, but it is a level of classification in the old system.

According to the new clade system, reptiles comprise four orders (listed here).

The common ancestor of these four orders is the same common ancestor that dinosaurs and birds have (the first sauropsid).

The amniote article says that sauropsidae are reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds. "The amniotes are a group of tetrapod vertebrates that include the Synapsida (mammals and mammal-like reptiles) and Sauropsida (reptiles and dinosaurs, including birds)." Thus sauropsida is not the same as reptile. Let's have a "sauropsida" page that explains that sauropsidae are reptiles, dinosaurs, and birds. Leadwind 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

New Theory

According to the University of California Museum of Paleontology, they say that turtles are a seprate class, while the other reptiles and birds shared the same class and common ancestors with the mammals and synapsids. Should we make the turtles a seprate class or keep them? Along with putting birds into the reptile (diapsids)? Also the UCMP classification is on the reptile page's history of classification if your curious people. More info on http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/tetrapods/tetrasy.html From 4444hhhh 00:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Not a new theory, but a variant classification scheme, that I haven't seen before. Better leave it as it is, as it doesn't seem to be widely accepted. Dinoguy2 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait do you mean to keep the way it is or use this method? From 4444hhhh 20:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Why is the part where the UMCP beleive they say that turtles are a seprate class, while the other reptiles and birds shared the same class and common ancestors with the mammals and synapsids?--4444hhhh (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the parareptilia hypothesis, which is not widely accepted today. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

'sides, see this (http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/30315/1/CR13-6.pdf) paper. the scientific community has been back and forth on the relationship 'tween turtles and other reptiles/archosaurs. i believe the pre-genetic studies by wilson-sarich suggested that birds and turtles were relatively close. that seems to be what this study suggests (ie, that turtles are not primitive but highly derived as regards jaw structure). - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hemipenes

This article states that all reptiles except turtles/tortoises have hemipenes. Do crocodilians have hemipenes? All the male crocs I've seen have only ever had one phallus. Smacdonald (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, major error. I'll fix that. Mokele (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Problem With Tuatara

Tuatara contain only one living species and they are found exclusively on two islands in the Cook Strait in New Zealand. Adolph172 (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)adolph172

Actually, there's two, S. punctatus and S. guntheri, with the latter being even rarer than the former, and even more endangered. See the tuatara page. Mokele (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Linnaean versus cladistic

Hello friends,

I think there's a simple solution to resolve the problem of outdated taxa (like reptiles or fish) : introduce every outdated taxon with the phrase "In linnaean taxonomy x are y". For example :

In Linnaean taxonomy reptiles are air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates that have skin covered in scales as opposed to hair or feathers.

Another possibility:

Reptile is an outdated taxon commonly used in Linnaean taxonomy. Reptiles are air-breathing, cold-blooded vertebrates....

For now the profane reader doesn't discover the taxon is outdated until several paragraphs, and that's the case for several articles related to outdated taxa. If he just reads looking for a precise information or definition and stops reading before the paragraph explaining the taxon is outdated, he just leaves wikipedia happy... and still ignorant. An outdated taxon should be immediately identified by the wikipedia reader since the very beginning of the article. This way people will learn, step by step, why dinosaurs are not reptiles or why birds are dinosaurs, what is a classification and how it works, and the most important: what's the difference between Linnaean and cladistic.

What do you think ? Kisses from Paris !

343KKT Kintaro (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Honestly, I don't support it. While the term "reptile" may not be PC (phylogenetically correct), it's actually a very valuable term for communication, and front-loading its paraphyletic nature will do nothing but confuse people. We should detail the issue classification section (as is already done), but I see no gain and lots of loss of clarity in starting the article with it. After all, this is an encyclopedia (and not even a pretentious one), not a scientific journal article. For example, look at the changes I made to the intro of snakes; by replacing the annoying list of apomorphies and defining features with something more common, I made it a LOT more readable, and structured the edit in such a way that accuracy was preserved. Mokele (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


In my opinion people are more confused if they continue thinking that reptiles are still an admitted taxon (as they usually do). But I don't insist, I perfectly understand your position even if it's not my own point of view. May be our efforts should be done more in schools than in wikipedia...
Good bye, and thanks for giving your opinion !
343KKT Kintaro (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Reptiles

HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS AND WHERE DID YOU GET THE INFORMATION FROM? WHAT WEBSITES? JUST WANTED TO KNOW. THANKS FOR READING HONEY, anonymous. (bigfan) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.82.37 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

On the article, look near to the bottom in the section called "References". The References list the places where the information came from.R00m c (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

SO LIKE I SAID BEFORE PLZ ANSWER MY ?S. SO MAYBE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN WO ARTICLES INSTEAD OF HOW MANY YOU MADE. PLZ TAKE MY ADVUCE AD I LOVE THIS SITE PAGE. ANONYMOUS(ME FROM BEFORE) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.82.37 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You have to be patient. 3 min. is not enough time for people to read and respond to your questions. Also, no need to yell(caps lock), we read you just fine in normal text. What are "WO ARTICLES"? Its hard to take your advise as we have no clue what you are try to say. R00m c (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

History of classification

The History of Classification section needs reorganising, so it follows chronological sequence. Sauropsida and associated comments (from my Sauropsida page, which has since been merged with the Reptile page) should come before Cladistics, because Cladistics is a recent development (1970s onwards). And at the start of the section there should be some comments on Linnaeus's definition (he included Amphibian and Reptile as one category, "Class Amphibia"). Linnaeus can be followed by brief summary of 18th and 19th naturalists. The following is one suggestion:

o Linnaeus definition - "Class Amphibia" includes amphians and reptiles
o Class Reptilia named by Laurenti 1768
o 19th century, "Reptilia" as conventionally defined (also includes the Victorians' "antedilevian monsters" and so on)
o Sauropsida etc
o Reptilia standard pre-cladistic definition (five subclasses, including Synapsida)
o Cladistic rejection of Reptilia as paraphyletic group

M Alan Kazlev (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whole section is about phylogenetic classification (with some Romer thrown on for good measure). As such, it belongs in the Sauropsida-page, the history of reptilian classification should be along the lines you suggest. Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I took the liberty of semi-protecting this article. Recently there has been a high number of IPs vandalising this page. Hope this was okay. Mark t young (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which has been bot-removed. However, I do believe that it should be retained. Mark t young (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


How come

Something I've noticed is that reptiles don't have a section / article on their intelligence. I am curious - why do mammals, birds and fish have one while reptiles don't? Elasmosaurus (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Immune system

I had added following note at the top of the article Polyclonal B cell response: "This article deals with immune response in the vertebrates, more specifically, mammals.". That was because I was (and still am) clueless about the immune system of other vertebrates—fish, amphibians, reptiles and aves (which I can somewhat safely assume could be somewhat similar to the mammals').

I had gone speedily through this article, and couldn't find any mention of the reptilian immune system. If a section by an expert on this (reptilian immune system) subject could be included that would be very nice. If not, kindly modify the above note on the Polyclonal B cell response article as thought appropriate by an expert on reptiles.

Regards.

—KetanPanchaltaLK 08:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo in taxobox

There seems to be a minor edit-war on this, so I'll just jot down my opinion here: First, no matter what definition you use, tuataras are indeed reptiles. Second, I think they are preferable to a chameleon for the simple reason that they're so basal in so many ways. Chameleons, on the other hand, are highly derived in most aspects of their morphology. It would be like putting a penguin in the bird taxobox - technically accurate, but hardly representative of the general body form of the group. Mokele (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Hash it out with these dumbasses:[3] if you want. Your analogy is a bit off as tuataras aren't very typical, either. I think something else should be used as long as the people who think they own tuatara article won't even mention the word reptile. I just grabbed a pardalis picture in the meantime. Let's go with something else.Maybe a crocodile? Monitor lizard?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

what does "typical" mean? i could make a great argument for how atypical crocs and monitors are (four-chambered hearts? gular pumping?). i read the debate at Talk:Tuatara. not very convincing. i consider myself a cladist too, but that doesn't mean we should turn wikipedia into a compendium of cutting edge scientific articles; it's an encyclopedia for popular consumption. it should represent the current state of the science, and not what a particular cadre of editors -- or even researchers -- argue. sure, mention and/or explain the debate but, paraphyletic or no, the layman will point to most any scaly, air-breathing tetrapod and say "reptile". (i'm going to post this at the Tuatara Talk page, while i'm at it).... - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 04:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we should make a compliation image that includes multiple reptiles, like in the animal taxobox. Any ideas on who we should include? - Enuja (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

good idea! if it were me, i'd put a tuatara, a turtle of some kind, a crocodilian, and some type of squamate. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email)

The animal taxobox is a good example - I'd recommend a "standard mix" of snake, lizard, croc, turtle. A nice basal animal is good if we need to pick a single representative, but if we can show diversity without it being confusing, I'd suggest that. I just think we should avoid the old woodcut/print that was previously used for lizards, since it was very cluttered and hard to see. Mokele (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The header refers very clearly to the four living orders. You should make the picture conform to that. If necessary, you could use one of the snake+lizard pictures (Image:Watersnake.JPG, Image:Snake eating a lizard.jpg, Image:Anole and snake.jpg) to represent the diversity within Squamata. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Please add refimprove template to article

Due to its lack of sufficient cites, this article requires the {{refimprove}} template. Since it is semi-protected, I am unable to add this myself. I will not be creating a Wikipedia account in order to do this. Will somebody please add this template to the article? Thank you. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Class/Clade problem

There have been several discussions as to the reptile class paraphyly problem... Would that not be solved once and for all, if we retained the article for traditional class Reptilia, but using the alternative taxobox for paraphyletic taxon (see for example Charophyta)?! Kaarel (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what groups are included? The clade reptilia includes thousands of sub-clades. Isn't picking a few of those as 'most important' just as arbitrary as making it paraphyletic? Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hear, hear. We're not here to decide for ourselves what the best solution may be; paraphyly within the class Reptilia is not our problem. In this respect, all we should do is try to reflect the current consensus among leading herpetologists. Since these people also have different opinions, this basically means we should strive to keep our taxoboxes as simple as possible (and/or agree to follow a third-party source that already does this). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with explaining the different solutions to the paraphyly problem within the article's Classification section. --Jwinius (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is not easy to decide what to include, that's why it seems to be more reasonable to indicate, what is excluded (a good example might be green algae). Kaarel (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paraphyly box. I think we should follow what other reptile articles use. Look at Dinosaur or Lizard -- both traditionally praphyletic groups. Doesn't seem to be a problem there, don't see why it's such a big deal here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization within binomial

If "Jaragua Sphaero" is a formal binomial, it is incorrectly capitalized. The trivial name should be all lower case. Buzdavis (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you had taken the trouble to click on the link, you would have seen that "Jaragua Sphaero" is the common name. The scientific name for it is Sphaerodactylus ariasae. --Jwinius (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the Sauropsida gone

I'm trying to read about taxonomy of some extinct animals, and the link for the real-but-obscure taxon Sauropsida redirects to the traditional-but-bogus taxon Reptile. That is really annoying. Reptile should have the general-interest article, and Sauropsida should have an article that fits the format for the rest of the articles for various taxa. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been over this about a dozen times, and the consensus has been reached. Short version - A change to "Sauropsida" would confuse almost everyone except those who are already well-versed enough to know about the issue of paraphyly, thus benefiting nobody. Sauropsida is almost never used outside of paleo circles, is completely baffling to 99% of the world, and it's not even used by most taxonomic sources. "Reptile" works perfectly well, and the sections on evolution and taxonomy make the paraphyly perfectly clear. Using "Sauropsida" would make this like most of the math and physics articles - technically correct but so complex and jargon-filled as to be absolutely useless to all but a tiny segment of the population. Anyone who realizes that Reptilia is paraphyletic and sauropsida isn't doesn't need to get information from wikipedia. WP is here to make information available, not to lock it away behind jargon. Mokele (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
If you feel the Sauropsida need more exposure in the Reptil page, feel free to ad a section on the systematics of the group. If you have a look at Vertebrate, you'll see an example where bout ways of classifying have been given ample room. We are in the extremely lucky situation that we don't need to cut down on information (unlike traditional lexica), so whatever you feel like contributing is welcome. The taxobox however, is for the benefit of the non-experts, and the taxonomy has been kept simple and orderly for ease of overview. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Why can't there be two articles, Sauropsida and Reptile? As I surfed the taxonomy of extinct amniotes, I wasn't looking for an article designed for third-graders use for their reports (and in this country likely as not the kid and teacher are both creationists anyway). Yet I'm not a specialist with copious sources to refer to, either. Nobody who clicks a link for Sauropsida is going to be looking for the third-grader article on reptiles. I gave up on trying to find out how various extinct taxa are believed to be related, partly because I don't really care that much, but partly because the sequences of links don't connect around the sauropsida. That's not an example of Wikipedia being useful, and I don't think it's that far from typical. I think there really are a fair number of people who are neither specialists nor third-graders. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, we do have an article for Sauropsida. Mokele (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there are a few articles that says "Sauropsida" but links here.Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Digestive system and Vegetarians

It would be great to include some information on vegetarian reptiles, and how they digest plant material. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Petter for adding information some information on the digestive systems of reptiles. I think Dinosaurs were predominantly herbivorous, but most reptiles today are carnivorous, it would be interesting to know how this transformation came about. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Now you are asking for long term evolutionary trends across several major taxa. If I where to venture a guess, I'd say that herbivory in tetrapods is mainly found in groups that constitute the "major fauna" of any given period. Today the "major fauna" are birds and placental mammals. In the Mesozoicum, "major fauna" would be dinosaurs, in the Paleozoicum it would be various Labyrinthodonts and anapsid reptiles. Now, this is a hunch, at best it is "original research", and as such can't be put in Wikipedia. I've added a bit on the prehistoric plant-eating reptiles, I hope that goes some way toward what you want. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I'm pretty ignorant about this subject, and there's probably something I'm not understanding. The tree structure depicted is captioned "Reptiles are a paraphyletic group. If birds were included would it be monophyletic." This appears to make sense, because with birds included the branch marked "Reptilia" would be "complete". But in the text of this article it says "The reptiles as defined above would be paraphyletic, since they exclude both birds and mammals..." (my italics). This seems to contradict the diagram and its caption. 86.161.41.247 (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's out-of-date. Turtles used to be considered anapsids, which would make them basal to diapsids (other reptiles + birds) and synapsids (mammals). However, no modern data supports turtles as anapsids. I'll fix it. Mokele (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Dammit, it's more than just that - the whole page uses Benton's taxonomy, which includes turtles as anpsids. I thought there was a consensus to use ITIS classification? Mokele (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No matter what way you turn it, "Reptiles" will be paraphyletic, unless you also include the synapsids and mammals. The problems with using a strict phylogenetic classification is what to do with early critters that we know must have been there, but that we have very little evidence for. There is a gap of 15 to 20 million years in the Carboniferous between the first amniotes and the first synapsids. The animals populating this gap where reptiles in the common sense, reptiles in Linnaean sense and reptiles in biological sense, but as they predate the synapsid - sauropsid split, cladistic systematics tend to either conveniently forget them (just like the somewhat uncertain position of turtles often leaves them out), or to just list them as "basal amniotes". Bout solutions are equally off, ignoring what little we actually do know about the group and leave all readers not intimately knowing the group and the peculiarity of cladistic taxonomy at a loss. Personally, I'd use Linnaean taxonomy and ad an annotated phylogenetic tree, serving bout the purpose of overview and details, but I know I'm in the minority here. Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My layman's view: I guess for the main presentation one scheme has to be chosen and adhered to consistently, but if there are significant competing schemes I don't think it hurts at all to summarise them and mention the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge. In fact, I think it's positively a good thing. 86.165.21.146 (talk) 03:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
Indeed! The present text on taxonomy is not very good at all. It starts off with presenting the current discussion of classification, and gives a rather cladistic-biased view of the matter. Also, it makes the basic cladistic error of assuming that Reptilia in the Linnaean sense without the Synapsida is a clade. It would only be of one assume that, as user 86.161.41.247 noted, amniota is actually biphyletic, a stance for which there is no evidence nor support. A major re-writing of the systematic chapter seems in order. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would it be an idea to move the section of History of classification and the phylogenetic tree below the section on evolution? I believe the modern dispute on how to classify these critters would make more sense to the lay reader after the rather complex relationship of reptilian tree has been dealt with. I doubt the general reader, coming to Wikipedia to find something about reptiles, are encouraged to read on when the first thing that meets them is a rather academic discussion on caladistic versus Linnaean taxonomy. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think a big issue is what are we calling early anapsids? Just "Early anapsids"? "Para-reptiles"? "Stem-reptiles"? "Reptiles"? If we restrict reptilia to all descendants of the common ancestor of all surviving (crown-group) reptiles, it's only paraphyletic with respect to birds (though it does raise the issue of what to do with all the anapsids). Alternatively, if we class reptiles as "all animiotes except birds and synapsids", we have more paraphyly but we know what to call the extinct anapsids. Also, I think the argument for diapsid turtles is pretty strong by this point, and we should convey that (though we should note the earlier consensus and that we aren't 100% sure of diapsid turtles yet). As it stands, it sounds a bit wishy-washy. Mokele (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. all recent phylogenetic studies I've seen have even true anapsids being closer to birds than to mammals. Amniota itself is defined as birds+mammals, so if anapsids are basal to this, it's a problem for the people trying to define Amphibian, not reptile ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he's refering to the "untrue anapsids" (the reptiles predating the Synapsid-saurpasid split). Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
"Reptile" cab be understood in vernacular terms, systematic (Linnaean) terms, paleontological (Romerian) terms, anatomical/physiological terms and a phylogenetic terms. Only under one of these do the naming of the early groups pose a problem. It does not matter much what we choose to call them, the important thing is that the text make clear who hails from who. Would basal reptiles do? The term anapsid too is ambiguous, being bout an anatomical and a systematic term. In the article the term is mostly used in an anatomical fashion, that should be made clearer. The chapter "History of classification" is in my view place to deal with the grade/clade issue.
Anyway, I would think that the casual reader coming here to find information on reptiles would be far more interested in the life and habit of existing reptiles, the sections starting this article would perhaps do better as a section below those dealing with anatomy?
At the heart of all this lies how one understands speciation. Does species give rise to new species, or do species split into two new species? In my world (I'm a zoologist) species do not go extinct just because a population become reproductively isolated. The basis for cladistical taxonomy is that they do. Thus we need to remember that cladistics is a model, and as any models has it's limitations. This discussion does however really not belong under this article, but in the species-article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

The section is a mess, with little distinction made between different lineages (it happily switches between including synapsids and excluding them) and timepoints, a lot of vagueness, and no sources. The article would be better off without the section. If there were sources and better (i.e. unconfusingly) written a lot of it could be moved to Amniote... but it would nned to be moved to userspace for improvement before that imo. Narayanese (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are only right in two out of three. Yes, it is not sourced (that can be fixed, most is straight forward low university grade textbook stuff), and it is rather untidy. It does hang on the concepts of "major faunas" and "major fauna components" in the sense employed by Romer and Colbert, and these are a bit vague and should be explained better. It is however consistent in including "mammal-like reptiles", as this is an article on reptiles in the vernacular sense, not on Sauropsida. It is also true that much of this could be used for the Amniota article, however, I feel that if the Amniote article needs expanding, it is in the section on embryological development of the Amnion in the different groups. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The definition you use is not what others use, thus it does not agree with the sources. You would get around it by entirely avoiding the term 'reptile'. Narayanese (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out bad sources! It seems the dating of a few groups is off on Wikipedia (copied to a lot of other sites) too, finding good sources for dates for the Nova Scotia critters was a bit of work. The new sources should provide the necessary backing. I hope the revised section is more to your taste. Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's another way of writing articles... I prefer to add only after I have the sources (but yes, the section is getting better). Getting something for the assertion that there is strong evidence that turtles are more distantly related to other reptiles than mammals are, as the article implicitly says, would be handy. Preferably not some textbook from the '70s. Narayanese (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a paleontologist, I just stumbled into this, trying to expand the somewhat vague section from scratch. I agree, getting all the facts straight and sourced the first time is better. I guess we should see this as an example of the Wikipedia model working. Oh, and thanks for your input, the section would not be very good without it! Petter Bøckman (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Reptilia

Hi Narayanese, you did an edit with reference to "Damiani et al 2003 Proc Biol Sci". Could you ad some meat to the bone on tha? I haven't been able to track it down. Petter Bøckman (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cold-Blooded

Why is the term cold-blooded used in this article? It is completely outdated and misrepresentational and simply is not used in scientific discourse. The correct term is ectothermic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seboba17 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the correct term is poikilothermic, but these articles need to strike a balance when it comes to scientific jargon and be understandable to a layman. Maybe phrasing it as "cold blooded" (or, more specifically, poikilothermic) would be a good compromise. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think cold-blooded is a reasonable term, but explaining what it means when used in this article would be a good thing. I guess this should be done early on, and perhaps a whole section should be added under "Systems" where temperature regulation in reptiles is covered. It is an interesting topic.Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "cold-blooded" never was a formal term and therefore the word "outdated" is the wrong description. "Cold-blooded" has always been an easy catch-all term for both ploikotherms (such as reptiles) and true ectotherms (such as most invertebrates). Likewise, "warm-blooded" is an easier-to-remember term for endotherms, such as birds and mammals. These are not formal scientific terms, current or former. They are basically slang, acceptable in the casual context of not writing a Lab Report. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.187.144 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
It was possibly an official term back in the 19th century or thereabouts (I think I have seen Huxley use it in some papers), but you are certainly right it hasn't been a scientific term for a while. It is however a very common term when referring to reptiles, and as such I think it should be mentioned in the article. I stand by my first suggestion of adding a section on temperature regulation. Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added an appropriate section.Petter Bøckman (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Despite the outdated nature of the term, for Wikipedia articles it seems that cold-blooded is actual the most appropriate one to use. At least as long as the name is linked to the disambiguation page that covers all the different aspects of what cold-blooded entails. Using poikilothermy doesn't work as many reptiles are not poikilothermic (e.g. heterothermic would be more appropriate for most thermoregulating lizards). Ultimately all extant reptiles are bradymetabolic, or have a low resting metabolism. If any one term could be stamped across the majority of cold-blooded animals then bradymetabolic would be it. However given its rather obscure use (especially when compared to ectothermy) using it as a substitute probably wouldn't be the best idea. For now I have changed many of the poikilotherm uses back to cold-blooded (complete with link). I also changed endotherm to warm-blooded, and made sure it linked to the warm-blooded page. Though it appears that this is a reversion back to the old, outdated, and frankly wrong views of thermophysiology, the fact that both of these terms link to pages that go into detail about why they are not in vogue anymore, makes them more helpful than having to constantly write out "endothermic/tachymetabolic/homeotherm / ectothermic/bradymetabolic/poikilotherm," or to choose one of the three to be the next wastebin.Jura (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I quite agree, besides Wikipedia is meant to be readable to the layman, cold-blooded will do as a general term. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox and excluded groups

In the current taxobox birds and mammals are listed as excluded groups. This may not sit well with the cladisticians among us, but is a reflection of this article being about reptiles in the vernacular, physiological and Linnaean sence. For a discussion of reptiles in the cladistic senses, see Sauropsida. Petter Bøckman (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see why editors might be confused by the "taxobox", they probably assume it is one. They glance down at File:Paraphyletic.svg, then remove Mammalia. They are 'correct' to do so, paralogically, Mammalia is being excluding from Amniota whereas Aves are being excluded from Reptilia. cygnis insignis 18:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, but the problem is the picture File:Paraphyletic.svg, not the text. As Colin Tudge is cited: ... the traditional Reptila are 'non-avian, non-mammalian amniotes. As mammals most definitely are amniotes, I guess I should rather make a new picture. Edit: New picture added. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, what are mammals doing on the list of excluded groups? Synapsids are not in any way (except for being amniotes) related to reptiles. Synapsids and reptiles, as you know, shared a common ancestor, but just because mammal ancestors looked reptilian doesn't necessarily mean that they are reptiles. I know this article's taxonomy is using the paraphyletic Linnaean format, but the only excluded group I should see are birds, not a group which has nothing to do with this one. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Only under the crown-group definition do the mammals fall entirely outside the reptilian line, and a pure crown-group approach is not even universally accepted among cladisticans, let alone among those using more traditional systematics. Accepting the crown-group definition gives a quite different subset of amniotes than the traditional definition of Reptilia, and it has thus been given a different name (see Benton's definition of Sauropsida for this view). This article is about reptiles in the traditional (Linnaean/Romerian) and vernacular sense, the taxobox and illustration reflects this. The details of alternative classifications are also amply covered. If you feel the page needs more on Sauropsida/Synapsida, feel free to ad to the chapter of "Changing classification".Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, while it's very likely that turtles are diapsids rather than anapsids (as originally thought), we still don't have a 'smoking gun' - a fossil turtle with two temporal fenestrae. Without that, the current data should be interpreted with caution. If turtles *are* anapsids, that might make both birds and mammals excluded taxa. I'm pretty convinved by the diapsid turtle argument, but until we find a fossil, it'll never be 100%. Mokele (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Birds belong in Class Reptilia

The text says:

Modern reptiles inhabit every continent with the exception of Antarctica, and four living orders are currently recognized:

* Crocodilia (crocodiles, gavials, caimans, and alligators): 23 species * Sphenodontia (tuatara from New Zealand): 2 species * Squamata (lizards, snakes, and amphisbaenids ["worm-lizards"]): approximately 7,900 species * Testudines (turtles and tortoises): approximately 300 species

They have forgotten about the order Saurischia, which includes birds, which are still alive today (obviously).

Scientific classification of birds: Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Reptilia (Reptiles) Superorder: Dinosauria (Dinosaurs) Order: Saurischia Suborder: Theropoda (Therapod dinosaurs) (unranked): Avialae (includes birds)

Despite birds not being considered, or named, as reptiles in common speech, according to scientific classification birds belong in class Reptilia. This articles starts with the definition:

Reptiles, or members of the class Reptilia,...

And indeed, if you search "Reptilia" in wikipedia, you are redirected to this article. Maybe in common speech birds are not considered reptiles, but this article starts off explixitly in a scientific manner, with the scientific definition of a reptile (Reptilia). So then the scientific classification of birds must be followed, and thus Saurischia is a living order of Reptiles, and in fact they DO inhabit Antarctica -penguins live there, and they are birds!!

Somebody change this terrible inaccuracy.


We've been over this at least 5 times in the past year. Please, read the talk page and the archives before asking the same question for the dozenth time. Mokele (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, they aren't. There is a separate Class Aves, with full scientific recognition. The article does note that the Class Reptilia is paraphyletic, which means it still had a common ancestor of its own even though newer taxa have diverged from it. Once a taxon diverges at Class or any other rank, it is no longer part of the ancestor taxon, because enough genetic differences have accumulated to make that the case. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.183.152 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I would like an established user to add ReptileBB (http://reptilebb.net) as an external link. ReptileBB is a community of reptile enthusiasts and we would be a beneficial resource for viewers of this page. Thank you, Rob @ ReptileBB --RPicard1 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done. WP:EL aside, this website has a grand total of 8 members. Please do not use Wikipedia for advertising. Tim Song (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Turtles, "Chelonia"

Turtle says: "Turtles are reptiles of the order Testudines (the crown group of the superorder Chelonia) ..."
Chelonia redirects to Green turtle Chelonia mydas, which has a note, " Chelonia redirects here. It is also the name of the superorder uniting turtles, tortoises and terrapins (Testudines) with the "proto-turtle" Australochelys. "
Do we want to create Chelonia (superorder)?
-- Writtenonsand (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Chelonia being bout a genus and a superorder? Hm, that's tricky... Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we have a credible source that Chelonia is a superorder containing order Testudines? In any case, the genus should have priority over the superoder, I'd suggest dropping the latter alltogether from the text. The whole sentence seem to be a result of applying the crown-group concept, which is not universally accepted even among cladistcs. Under a non-crown (i.e. traditional/common) use of Testudines it contains all turtles, including the primitive forms like Australochelys..Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Domain rank

A Domain is a full (by which I mean not a Super-, Sub-, or Infra-Anything) taxonomic rank. It is just as necessary to mention as the ranks below. It is not vandalism to add Domain Eukarya above Kingdom Animalia. Kingdom is no longer considered the highest rank, as it is second to Domain. So, let's include it. There are only 3 of them in the whole biosphere, the Domains Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya, sp that really isn't much to memorize. I should be able to add Domain Eukarya above Kingdom Animalia without being accused of vandalism and having the article Semi-Protected. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.185.226 (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Any sources on Domain being an required? Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't required. 89.240.239.157 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Genera are unique in biological taxonomy, therefore any rank above genus is redundant. However, it is useful to include higher taxa as an aid to the reader. That being so, I cannot see any good reason to stop at Kingdom, and so support the introduction of domain to all taxoboxes. I don't think it is required, but I certainly object to 89's removing them. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, ColinFine! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not dead set against the inclusion of Domanin, but in my view it merely clutter up the taxon box. The domains are of limited interest to those seeking information on reptiles, and If they seek information on domain-level --Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)systematics, class level articles like this will hardly be their entry point.Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't that apply equally to the kingdom? --ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Kingdom is part of the formal hierarchy, so it should stay.Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Domain is every bit as "formal" as kingdom, if not moreso (since some "kingdoms" are paraphyletic). Kingdom is merely older, nothing more. Mokele (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)--Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not dead set against including domain, but I can't say I have seen it documented as part of the formal system. ITIS does not have it. As far as I know, paraphyly in higher units has no bearing on formality. If paraphyly is the sticky point, it can be argued that domains too are paraphyletic, inasmuch as Eucarians can be said to have evolved from an Archaean ancestor. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
ColinFine is not quite correct when he says that genera are unique in biological taxonomy. They are, I believe, unique in zoological taxonomy and in botanical taxonomy, but Prunella, for example, is the name of a genus of animals and of a genus of plants. However, I have assumed that the purpose of taxon boxes is to set a particular organism within the context of all other organisms. Now that the concept of domains exists, that context is not complete unless the relevant domain is included. I think that is the point that ColinFine is making. Old Father Time (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Domain really useful, and can you cite an available (non-pay-for, easily found) source to support that claim? i.e. find a reputable webpage that provides a good argument for using Domain, then add Domain to any page you want and post a link to said site on the talk page for that article. If you can do that, go ahead and add the content. -- Nutarama (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like the right way to go about it to me.Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, you won't find any source claiming any rank/taxon level is "useful", just valid/invalid. How "useful" it is isn't something objectively assessed, but rather determined through subsequent use. Domain is widely used, especially by those who wind up dealing with more than one of them at a time, such as microbiologists - just google "archaea" and see. Mokele (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
True enough, domain is useful for those dealing with single cell organisms. I would however still like to see an official source for domain as a formal unit. I'll readily admit to last having studied systematics in the mid 90'ies, but at least back then the domains where kind of informal (regardless of whether they were seen as "right" or not). Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It's extremely widely used throughout the scientific community, in many, many pubs. That makes it formal. Whether it's useful or not for

the page is up for grabs, but the reality and wide acceptance of Domains isn't. Mokele (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All I'm asking for is some form of reference, Gents. The one listed for the amphibian/reptile project is ITIS, and they do not use it. From my point of view, it looks like domains is kind of informal. I'm more than willing to be proven wrong here, does anyone have a source that says, or at least indicates it's part of the formal system? Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1 and the references it lists. Remmber, there is no "formal". There is no central arbiter of what is or is not a good classification, no central committee to submit things to. The closest is the ICZN and its sister organizations, but that's only for genus & species. Whether any particular higher-level taxon name is valid and useful is a matter of the scientific literature, which uses "archaea" and other domains abundantly. Mokele (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising tolweb has it, as they have dedicated themselves to map every nook and cranny on the tree. I made the rules of the game though, I better abide by them ;-) Actually, I could have sworn the units of Kingdom, Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and species are the formal units, but I may be off. If everything above Genus is informal, then it's just a question of whet to stuff in the info-box, right? Well, I'm still against "Domain", as it provides no useful information at this level of systematics. I'll bow to majority though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Petter, it would help if you would define what you mean by "formal". It seems to me that this is a term you have introduced to the discussion, but nobody else has used in except in replying to you. Mokele says "There is no formal", and I would tend to agree: but perhaps you have something in mind that you've not yet been explicit about? --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a bit late in answering. By the "formal" ranks I mean Kingdom, Phyllum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. It may be a local tradition thing, but back when I was a student, these were obligatory, the various super-, sub-, infra- etc units were a bit more optional and was used when they added clarity, omitted when they did not.Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is a circular argument. You are trying to establish that "domain" is not "formal", but when asked what "formal" means, you give a list which does not include "domain". I think your "when I was a student" is the crucial thing. "Domain" is much newer than the other taxa, and I have no doubt there are some taxonomists who have not accepted it. But many biologists have embraced Woese's three-domain system, and for all these, there is absolutely no test by which "domain" is less "formal" than "kingdom". --ColinFine (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry mate, just passing on what I was told when i studied back 20 years ago. Yeah, I know, Kingdom being formal because it is formal isn't much of an argument, but since that is what I was thought I supposed that was the case.Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It was the case, but that doesn't mean it still is.
I found (from reverting User:UtherSRG's removal of it from Gecko) that there is a parallel discussion to this going on at Template_talk:Taxobox#Domain. --11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Colin! Really, this is a general question, and I think Template_talk:Taxobox#Domain is really where this discussion belongs.--Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the most modern type of reptile

What is the most modern type of reptile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.30.39.94 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, all extant ones are by definition modern, but I suppose snakes are those with the most "air under their wings" currently, evolutionary speaking. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Traditional_Reptilia.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.227.133 (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reptile hearing

I came across this article Electrical tuning which talks about how frogs and and reptiles use this process to hear and thought to add some text here with a link back to Electrical tuning. Not sure about the best placement on the page here thou. Any suggestions? Blackash have a chat 12:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Parapsida?

This one is new to me. Can anyone offer a proper source for Parapsida? It should anyway be moved, as it does not belong to Romers classification. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it's an old classification for ichthyosaurs, somehow distinct from Euryapsida for reasons I don't know - http://www.palaeos.org/Reptilia Mokele (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
According to this, Prapsida seems to be a synonym rather than a separate unit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A bit of poking around google scholar suggests it's pretty poorly defined, and of dubious use even back when it had some validity. Mokele (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed it up to the best of my (limited) knowledge. You are welcome to improve on it. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reptile/Archive_1&oldid=1258670395"