User talk:Peter coxhead

TUSC token 4e41785016df312d7f4772b046fd919f

I now have a TUSC account!

Plant article naming convention

Hi Peter coxhead. There is a plant article naming convention request at the Help Desk. I saw your name listed at Naming_conventions_(flora) contributions and am hoping you would post your thoughts at How long does speedy deletion usually take?.[1] I asked Pmanderson on the Pmanderson talk page, but not sure if she/he will see the request. Thanks. --

tetrahedronX7

Hey thank you for editing . My friend

Lists of Salticidae species

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination). Thanks!

Mail message sent

Hello, Peter coxhead. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Photo Removal

I'm new to all this but eager to make positive contributions. I just want to thank you for all the work you do here. You've removed several of my photos recently but I see that your reasoning is sound. Soryy to make more work for you. I'll try to be more pertinent and concise in the future. Thanks!

Total group and other arcana

Peter, I *think* I broadly grasp the subtleties involved in the craniate/vertebrate thing, but agree a bit more is needed. Would you be up to drafting a sentence or two to cover the myllokunmingiid issue? I'm also uncertain about the cladogram: do you feel the change you indicated on the talk page is safe? Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: the cladogram could be changed, based on the one on p. 95 of the appendix to the Miyashita et al. (2019) article ([2]), which does use "Vertebrata (total group)" as well as "Vertebrata (crown group)".

What I think is needed is a new section discussing those treatments that distinguish Craniata and Vertebrata. The issue concerns the placement of extant hagfish and fossil agnathans like myllokunmingiids. In some approaches, one or both are placed in Craniata but outside Vertebrata (see Fig. 1 B and D of the main Miyashita et al. (2019) article). However, I can't see that their Fig. 1 E, which they say is a summary of their work, is actually compatible with the cladogram in Fig. 3 or the fuller one in the appendix, because Fig. 1 E doesn't show any fossil agnathans outside the clade containing crown group vertebrates and cyclostomes. I don't have time right now for more research on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I felt in my water that this was tricky. I've extended the cladogram and (very briefly) the text. Hope it's a bit better. Thanks again! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tapinauchenius plumipes

Hi Peter, I wanted a second opinion/advice on how to proceed with changes to this article as I know you've been active in Project Spiders and have done a taxon swap on this page before, and I'm pretty sure this one has gotten thoroughly borked by the way some of those have interacted. However I can't access the relevant paper and am a bit out of the loop, and don't know where to begin with trying to flag the page for review etc.

Basically, Tapinauchenius gigas was moved to Pseudoclamoris gigas when the genus was erected by Hüsser, and you moved the page accordingly. However, the 2022 Cifuentes and Bertani paper, which I cannot access, made some more sweeping changes that I believe caused this page to become highly inaccurate when the next taxon swap was implemented.

I read the paper some years ago and from what I remember, what was widely known as T. gigas/P. gigas was found to be a misidentification that didn't match the holotype, leading to the destruction of Pseudoclamoris and the erection of Amazonius (it being the type species for Pseudoclamoris). The former "P. gigas" was, I believe, described as new species, A. germani.

Unfortunately this is where some things went a bit wrong for the wiki articles, as analysis of the original T. gigas holotype found it (and four other species) to be synonymous with T. plumipes. Instead of taxon swapping P. gigas to A. germani, it was moved to T. plumipes. Which, from a purely taxonomic perspective is accurate, the true T. gigas is a junior synonym of T. plumipes, however, all the photos and information on the page (outwith the taxo-box?) are actually for A. germani.

Ordinarily I'd just go fix this but I'd rather not further complicate the situation, especially without access to the relevant paper to check I'm not totally misinterpreting things. What do you think is the best course of action here? Is there a place to raise this with Project Spiders?

Thanks Hedge89 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedge89: yes, you've rightly identified a mess to be sorted. If you create an account at the World Spider Catalog, which is free to do, you'll find that you can access a huge range of articles relevant to spiders. (It seems that Swiss law allows them to post copyright material there for research purposes.) The 2022 Cifuentes & Bertani paper is accessible here with an account.

The image in the taxobox at Tapinauchenius plumipes appears to be Amazonius germani based on the photos in the 2022 paper and the photo in Tarantupedia.

I think the best thing to do is to start a new article for Amazonius germani, rather than moving again, and then totally revise Tapinauchenius plumipes – most of the information is either unsourced or based on a now non-existent Tarantupedia page since Tarantupedia has been correctly updated. Unfortunately, the 2022 Cifuentes & Bertani paper is very detailed on features visible in preserved specimens under a microscope, and doesn't describe living animals well. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead Thanks, guess it's time to make a WSC account, good tip actually r.e. the paper access. I was going to take a crack at fixing all this but I see you've already overhauled the article and created one for A. germani.

R.e. the page image for plumipes, while that does appear to be an accurate photo (of a very ropey looking mature male missing three legs) there's a potentially better (?) photo of a female here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tapinauchenius_violaceus.jpg under one of the other species names since synonymised with plumipes. Unfortunately I don't think I've got any decent photos of the species myself that I could upload.

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly and for straightening this all out. Hedge89 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip re File:Tapinauchenius_violaceus.jpg. I also created the SIA at Tapinauchenius gigas if you hadn't seen it.

When you get access to the article, I leave it to you to add some description to the two species articles, which is definitely needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again for all your hard work on this. Hedge89 (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goliath birdeater

The point here is that Theraphosa blondi is not just the most massive spider in the world, but also in history. Which I consider relevant for the article. For instance in the article about the blue whale, it is pointed out that "it is the largest animal known to have ever existed". Just as Goliath birdeater is the largest spider know to have ever existed. And based on fossils, none of those discovered till now comes even close. Lidenbrock (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lidenbrock: ok, I see your point; I've restored the comparison with some copy-edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maireana family?

Sorry to bother. Us colonials are at it again. Plants of the World Online places ''Maireana'' in the family Amaranthaceae but all Australian authorities (eg. PlantNet,[3] Victoria,[4] FloraBase and APC) place it in Chenopodiaceae, as did Paul G. Wilson, who wrote a revision of the genus in 1975. It is a bit strange to have "Amaranthaceae" in the taxoboxes and "Chenopodiaceae" in the references. I'm tempted to leave the dogs sleeping. Your suggestion please. Gderrin (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Chenopodiaceae is treated as as synonym of Amaranthaceae by PoWO, APweb, GBIF, etc. All the APG versions seem to do the same. WFO is odd because it says that Chenopodiaceae is accepted, but has no subtaxa, and places Chenopodium in Amaranthaceae. See Amaranthaceae#Taxonomy for a discussion.

I do note that Australian sources such as VicFlora divide genera that PoWO etc. place in Amaranthaceae between it and Chenopodiaceae. I'm not sure whether this is just a hang-over or a deliberate choice, but the evidence for sinking Chenopodiaceae into Amaranthaceae seems very strong (unless Polycnemoideae is separated, which none of the Australian sources seem to do).

As we have agreed to use APG IV, then, yes, we should use Amaranthaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter. Thanks very much for checking and answering my query. Still seems strange, but I'm happy to not disturb the canines. Gderrin (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I display the taxobox while temporarily disabling the categories

I appreciate the work you did, and while I noticed you <nowiki>'d the taxobox here, I wonder: can the taxobox still be displayed for the sake of template-page drafting, while preventing the template itself from getting categorized, but leaving the option for it to re-categorized appropriately once drafters submit the page to mainspace or draftspace? Maybe you might want to talk with the creator(s) of {{User sandbox+}} to make a more seamless implementation of this feature?

I'm trying to work on a project of building a standardized (but hopefully still flexible) framework for building/drafting prokaryote taxon articles; so far, I've just started with Species (archean), which I consider to be barely in alpha.
That's 1 out of 6, the other 5 are: Genus, Taxon, and then the bacterial counterparts(?) of those.
I plan to share it among WP:MICRO wikipedians (and I think maybe among WP:MOLBIO wikipedians as well) once I think it's complete enough to be ready for an appropriate feedback. CheckNineEight (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckNineEight: Well, it won't "display" the taxobox unless there is a taxonomy template to connect to. One answer is to create a 'dummy' taxonomy template at a fake genus name, and instead of | taxon = Binomial name use the fake genus name + any text for the species name. If you used | taxon = Archaeagenus species, there could be a taxonomy template at "Template:Taxonomy/Archaeagenus" with |parent= set to "Archaea", say, containing visible text in |refs= saying it was a dummy. Then in the article template, comments would say to replace with actual genus and species names and create the taxonomy template if it's a genus without a taxonomy template yet. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – I decided to use Dummygenus instead of Archaeagenus, and I also set its parent to Life. That's fine, right? CheckNineEight (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckNineEight: Sure, fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I didn't break anything else, right; nothing else need to be done for the page template? CheckNineEight (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Recenty when I was changing the article Laojieella into a redirect and that started with a page blanking then editing but I had to look up a spelling and you edited it when I got back to editing mode, just saying these days I blank my own pages since I screw up, a lot so please don’t be too suspicious of until I go on for over one day without doing anything. Zhenghecaris (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhenghecaris: Yes, I saw and understood your final action. I think it's better not to blank a page as a first step – in this case I would go straight to the redirect. However, if you do blank a page first, you need to give an explanation in the edit comment, so other editors know what you are doing. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok Zhenghecaris (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]