Jump to content

Talk:Toxicofera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr Fry

[edit]

Eventually the Dr. Fry info should get his own page... is there a Wikipedia category for 'extreme science'? ;-) -- Limulus 01:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion about the Wikipedia entry on Dr. Fry's forum -- Limulus 02:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great as it is to see people enjoying science, notable for a scientist should be restricted to major advances in a field. Compare to other scientists who are in wikipedia, this does not meet the standard. Sad mouse 00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mosasaurs

[edit]

Given as how the Mosasaurs are presumed to be descended from the monitor lizards, should they be included in Toxicofera, too?--Mr Fink 02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably - check out: http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/04/tongues_venom_goronyosaurus.php ErikHaugen (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should say "yes" instead of "probably." ErikHaugen (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with Squamates

[edit]

I think this should merge with the main squamate page.--4444hhhh (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say is bring Toxicofera to the classifacation like this:

Classification

Classically, the order is divided into three suborders:

  • Lacertilia, the lizards;
  • Serpentes, the snakes;
  • Amphisbaenia, the worm lizards.

Of these, the lizards form a paraphyletic group. In newer classifications the name Sauria is used for reptiles and birds in general, and the Squamata are divided differently:

  • Suborder Iguania (the iguanas and chameleons)
  • Suborder Scleroglossa
    • Infraorder Gekkota (the geckos)
    • Infraorder Anguimorpha (the monitors, goannas, Komodo dragon, Gila monster, and slow-worms)
    • Infraorder Scincomorpha (skinks, whiptail lizards and common European lizards)
    • Infraorder Serpentes (the snakes)
    • Infraorder Amphisbaenia

The exact relationships within these two suborders are not entirely certain yet, though recent research strongly suggests that several families form a venom clade which encompasses a majority (nearly 60%) of Squamate species. The group is call Toxicofera. Toxicofera combines the following groups from traditional classification:

  • suborder Serpentes (snakes)
  • suborder Iguania (anoles, chameleons, iguanas, etc.)
  • infraorder Anguimorpha, consisting of:
  • family Varanidae (monitor lizards, including the Komodo dragon)
  • family Anguidae (alligator lizards, glass lizards, etc.)
  • family Helodermatidae (Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard)

--4444hhhh (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is fine as a stand-alone theory or hypothesis, but the scientific community has not recognized this classification.--Mike Searson (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "citation needed" mentions all over the article

[edit]

If one looks at the last edit I did in 2005 [1] it actually makes sense; the refs are listed as "papers". Basically the article just needs some cleanup and partial rv to the text from then. I will try to help put it in the proper format... -- Limulus (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That 2005 version is pretty good, actually. I still challenge anyone to find where they found venom glands in a Green Iguana, the reporter who wrote that in the article needs to be strung up(alongside the halfwit who designed this wireless keyboard that drops letters on me!). Fry lost credibility with me when he wrote "Iguania" as opposed to "Agaminae"...sloppy junk science at worst, intentionally misleading the public at best.--Mike Searson (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... in the 2006 article, Fry does say "The iguanian lizard Pogona barbata" but I note on the fourth page he has two refs for "Squamate reptile phylogeny", one of which is a different Vidal article, and describes an 'Iguania lineage' of "Iguanidae, Agamidae and Chamaeleontidae". I think I need to fix the Cladistics section now ^_^; Thanks for the praise RE my 2005 edits BTW :) -- Limulus (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as I refresh myself on Fry's work and interviews, I get the impression that his strong suit is catching and milking exotic venomous reptiles, not doing the phylogeny; I think he is thus relying on others for that and if he makes mistakes, at least he references them :) -- Limulus (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We really have to watch the close-paraphrasing, I just reviewed 2 other snake pieces with copious amounts cut and paste from the originals. Quoting and attributing is acceptable, although it should be summarized and put into the editor's words, but we have to watch out for non-free content being used in the prose.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary claims "not only is it just plagurism, it's unsourced peacock terms (treasure trove) and lifted word-for-word from the abstract of the paper." It's been a long time since I've worked on this page, so please provide details. The PDF reads: "These results provide new insights into the evolution of the venom system in squamate reptiles and open new avenues for biomedical research and drug design using hitherto unexplored venom proteins." while the text you removed from the article says "The newly discovered diversity of squamate species producing venoms is a treasure trove for those seeking to develop new pharmaceutical drugs; many of these venoms lower blood pressure, for example.<ref name="Fry2006" /> Previously known venomous squamates have already provided the basis for medications such as Ancrod, Captopril, Eptifibatide, Exenatide and Tirofiban." Treasure trove [2] is a figure of speech. The list of medications as I recall is just from searching on Wikipedia; where is the supposed plagiarism there? Also, why did you remove the images? -- Limulus (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That treasure trove passage is from an earlier article about the clade that is published elsewhere and the tone is nonencyclopedic, why not just say, "This is such a cool theory" while you're at it (don't mean, you, personally, but whomever decided that such puffery belongs here)? The images were cockblocking the text and if you think they help the article feel free to put them back, but properly placed so they don't fuck up the text. Didn't mean to imply the meds were copy pasted/closely paraphrased, but if you put them back in, please use a reliable source to back them up. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. We can do better with this article, can't we?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PubMed search for Toxicofera treasure trove yields no results, nor does 'venom clade treasure trove' though 'treasure trove' by itself is clearly shown in use in the way I described. Can you show me the "earlier article about the clade that is published elsewhere" please? Because to the best of my recollection the text you removed is simply a paraphrasing of the cited ref. -- Limulus (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, close paraphrasing...which is a no-no, and treasure trove in this context is an unencyclopedic metaphor.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, ok, basically you are backtracking from your plagiarism claim. Unless you can present actual evidence of copy+paste, please remove the copypaste template (which is for direct copying, preferably with some evidence) or I will. And you are claiming that the paraphrasing "open new avenues for biomedical research and drug design using hitherto unexplored venom proteins" is too close to "a treasure trove for those seeking to develop new pharmaceutical drugs"? (So how would YOU convey that idea?). Also, please read the treasure trove article: "The term treasure trove is often used metaphorically to mean a "valuable find", and hence a source of treasure, or a reserve or repository of valuable things." It is not "unencyclopedic" it is literally the case here. -- Limulus (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After checking again, I'm thinking these hits that I got may be mirrors. But, no, treassyre trove doesn't go back in. Too metaphorical for a science-based article. Fine if you're writing about unicorns or smurfs or dungeons and dragons, and maybe even in a personal blog essay, or light magazine piece; but not here. Ever heard of NPOV? How are any of us to say it is "valuable", especially when it's been 6 years and nothing has still comefrom it? --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 11:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for self-rv the copypaste template. Comment: Based on your remarks here I think you need to be aware that you are coming across as, ahem, somewhat uncivil. I was hoping that the bizarre word choice, unnecessary profanity and especially the combative tone was just a one-time thing, maybe the result of being under the weather, a bad day at the office, or whatever, but it is continuing. This most recent edit, with the comment "no, treassyre trove doesn't go back in" also seems to border on Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If you think it's being playful or humorous, that's not how it's coming across. Please stop. -- Limulus (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, definitely was not the intent, maybe I eat too much red meat.  :) How about, as a reader and editor, i would prefer to see stronger terminology used in a scientific article. By the way, if you need a source from some meds...for the article, either Gila Monster or Beaded Lizard lists a few, with soutces, if I recall correctly.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, there should be some inline referencing done to this article again. Marking with CN is helpful. Would you be willing to readd the sentence you removed with the list of drugs, with a CN tag? Also, as you do not like the treasure trove phrasing, can you suggest an alternate way of expressing the idea of "These results [...] open new avenues for biomedical research and drug design using hitherto unexplored venom proteins."? -- Limulus (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a new wording is suggested/added, I'm going to readd the old one. -- Limulus (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC) About to readd it momentarily; feel free to change the wording, but please don't just blank it out again. -- Limulus (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Toxicofera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Toxicofera&oldid=1195584243"