User talk:Shellnut/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Yet more on Africonus

I am starting another thread so the other does not get too long. Hello again Shellnut, there are some things I need to tell you:

First, thanks for spotting that WoRMS thing, I turned the first mention of WoRMS into the full name and blue-linked it, because fortunately we already have have a short article about WoRMS.

Because you are still new here, there are are quite a number of Wikipedia conventions and guidelines that you don’t know about yet. These things are important to know because they are what gives the encyclopedia its pleasant and uniform appearance.

On Wikipedia, headings and titles have only the first word capitalized, no caps on other subsequent words.

We try to keep headings as short as possible.

We don’t use underlining for emphasis in Wikipedia articles, and we don't routinely use boldface for that purpose either. Of course you will see all kinds of things done on talk pages (which are very informal), but many things are not done in an article, which is formal.
In an article we blue link the first use of a name or term, but not all the subsequent uses of it. There are some OK exceptions to this rule, but a name or term should not be blue-linked numerous times when you use it in an article.

Another more important thing: it takes at least a year of editing to begin to get a really good sense of what the conventions are on Wikipedia. I don’t mean just all the little pieces of markup language and the layout conventions, but the overall question of what style of writing is appropriate to the encyclopoedia, what counts as not being “Neutral Point of View”, when and how to use references, what layout is appropriate where, and so on. Even with good mentoring all that is true. And that is why we usually recommend that people “warm up” for several months on Wikipedia by making numerous small edits to pre-existing articles, and only attempt to create new article after that. It is terrific that you are very enthusiastic and very capable in some ways. I would however recommend we all go slowly and carefully with making articles for what is a major change in the taxonomy of a large group within Project Gastropods. It takes me quite a long time and quite a bit of careful thought to examine and improve the Africonus article each time we revise it. JoJan is very busy with the Pyramidellidae articles right now and cannot help out very much. I myself am quite busy (temporarily) doing a big project of articles about National Lampoon. I will see if maybe Daniel can give his opinion as to how we are doing with the Africonus article. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Good morning Invertzoo! Thank you for your helpful comments. I have merely finished putting in the distinguishing characteristcs in Africonus and the Asprella article which Ganeshk started with the BOT. I fully intend to stop for not, take a breather, and wait to hear back from senior editors with comments and/or approval BEFORE writing another genus article for the Conidae. I think that we have a good template so far, and I really like the format changes you made today. I used the bold and underline because I could not figure out how to set the two genera off well for comparison, The use of indents looks great!!!Shellnut (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the format on Asprella to match your changes to Africonus, so the style is the same and you won't have to waste time doing the same thing twice. OK, I'm done already on these ones until I hear otherwise.Shellnut (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I went through the Africonus article just now, and found a whole bunch more changes that I had previously made to the Africonus article that it appears you had not noticed and therefore had not made the corresponding to the Asprella article. I made those changes. Next time with something like that rather than using the draft on your subpage, you might want to copy sections from the first article and paste them into the second article, and then alter it for the new genus, that way you tend to get the version that is totally up to date. I am also considering moving the synonym listings to the bottom of the Species list sections, because I think maybe it is clearer that way. Thanks for your work and for the beautiful photos. Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! Did I tell you before ... you are awesome!!! You are correct that I did not notice all the changes that you had made. It reads really nice now. That was WHY I had only started the one genus article to begin with, the second one just kind of happened when I asked for a link to work. Like I said, I am not going to mess with it in the big picture any more until I hear back from you. I did, however, clean up a taxonomy issue on a synonym and cited WoRMS and the T&T treatise. Since then today I have been adding species articles under Conus where a lot of red lined species names existed. Just the basic stuff for now. In the process I found another article, one by Olivera & Biggs, et al. 2010, using morphology and molecular studies and toxinological criteria on a species complex of Cones (in the Kurodaconus group) and identifying new species in the process. Their article also cites to discussions with Alan Kohn and Christopher Meyer. Interestingly, they too found a strong correlation between the morphological data and feeding habits together versus the molecular data. P.S. I can not really take credit for those two images as they were already out there on Wikipedia attached to species articles; I merely found them and posted them on the articles - including one of them taken by JoJan himself.Shellnut (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I took a good look at those articles and they seem great. They're well referenced, and well structured. I only made a small change in Asprella (removed an unnecessary redundancy). I would say that with a good photo gallery of the species, it would be possible to reclassify these two articles for C-class, or even B-class. I'd say they are C already. Well done! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! It looks like both Daniel and JoJan are OK with the general format of the genus articles for the Conidae, thanks to your mentoring and editing efforts. I really like that you move the synonomy section to the end as it is much clearer that way. I also heard back from both John Tucker and Manuel Tenorio, and they have approved the format and content of the articles. I have one new research article I read, by Olivera & Biggs (mentioned above), that is based in large part on DNA testing / molecular studies, and strongly supports not only the breakup of the genus Conus, but also the new genera. The authors of that paper called for the creation of the genus Turriconus for ten species of cones (three newly described to science), which was one the genera set forth in Tucker & Tenorio (2009), based upon their cladistic analysis of DNA studies, morphology, and the specific neurotoxins (which relates directly to feeding habits). I do not know how much is too much, but certainly all of these studies could be addressed in a separate article as it becomes tangential to the main point of the article. So, what do you think?Shellnut (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite clear as to what you mean. Do you mean we could create an article about the Tucker & Tenorio paper? Or do you mean we could create an article about the overall history of the classification of the Conidae? If either of those topics is written up enough/ reviewed by third parties in reliable sources then yes we could consider doing that. Invertzoo (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Invertzoo, and Happy Thanksgiving! I was thinking about later possibly doing an article on the history of taxonomic changes in the Conidae, as it is complicated enough to warrant that. Back to the main topic though, I have read comments from JoJan, Daniel, Snek, and yourself on the basic layout. I think we have worked out the "bugs". At this point would it be proper (or prudent) for me to attempt writing another genus article using the Africonus format?Shellnut (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Invertzoo!! I tried a little "monkey see, monkey do" and figured out how to shorten the references by using a reference name when a citation is used more than once. I fixed up both genus articles, Africonus and Asprella, by taking out the multiple references to Tucker & Tenorio (2009) the same way you did earlier in those same articles for the WoRMS references. It looks much cleaner now. Still learning new tricks ...Shellnut (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

About seashells

Hey Shellnut! Sorry for answering so late. I've been really busy IRL... Yeah, I'm working at the University of São Paulo's Museum of Zoology as a Technician/Collections Manager. I have a personal collection, but it is way too small. About 200 specimens from all over the world, mainly Strombidae, Conidae, Cypraeidae and Muricidae (all gastropods, of course). As for the software you're developing, I find it very interesting! But since I'm in a public institution, the decision to use it wouldn't be mine. As for my own collection, it's way too small as I said! Though I love strombid snails, I'm not working with the group. I've been studying mesogastropods (littorinids) and neogastropods (fasciolariids). By the way, do you know professor José Henrique Leal, from the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum? Best! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Daniel! I "know of" José Henrique Leal, from the Bailey-Matthews Shell Museum, but I do not know him personally. I was happy to hear about that museum being built - years ago when it was first written about. I used to do undergraduate research and later volunteered at the U.C. Irvine Museum of Natural History; back then the student's referred to it as "the dead bird museum" because of the raptors and ducks handing from the ceiling. I had my own collection before that, but never more than say 300 species. Since college in the 1980s my collection has grown substantially. I wrote the computer program when it was still manageable on index cards. Would you mind reviewing the Africonus article and giving your critique? I would like to have an approved form/format and a review on the science before making more genus articles for the family. Thanks Daniel!!!Shellnut (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel, I am going down to Sanibel, Florida in early December. I am supposed to meet José Leal while I am on the island. I am looking forward to that. Does he know you? If so I will mention that I know you too. Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he knows me! Tell him you know Daniel Cavallari, who works with Professor Luiz Simone, from Brazil. He'll know. I met Professor Leal during a national meeting of malacology in Fortaleza, Brazil, this year in September. I was in his presentation on scientific publishing in malacology. Very interesting presentation, by the way! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool! I will do that. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New genus articles for Conidae

Yes, as you can see, you will be learning more and more and more (!) the longer you stay on Wikipedia. Just so as you know, normally a history of the Conidae would be a section in the Conidae article, and you would only split off a new article if the history section got to be enormous so it made the Conidae article so long that it was slow to upload. As for the genera articles, yes, go ahead and create a new genus stub. You may want to do it by copying and pasting the Africonus article and then substituting in the new content. Happy Thanksgiving to anyone in the US who reads this, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ganeshk's comment copied and pasted from Wikiprojects Gastropods Discussion Page
I think it is okay to have the proposed genera articles. They are recognized by WoRMS as accepted. I suggest you write up the justification, Significance of "alternative representation", in a separate article. For example, Proposed split of genus Conus. It is kind of redundant to repeat the section in every article. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think Invertzoo? Should this be on the main page for the family Conidae, on a separate page, or spelled out on each genus article? Maybe a longer more detailed article? I have been pulling and reading the underlying published articles that I have cited and quite a few other new ones to boot. Right now I am working on the Austroconus article.Shellnut (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to think carefully about this. Some people do strongly dislike having the same info in a lot of articles, but in some ways I feel that each article should be able to stand more or less on its own, without the reader having to go to another page for the explanation of what the article is supposed to be about. Also I am dubious that "alternate representation" is enough of a topic to create a full article on all by itself, and it would be an article that will quite likely (I imagine) become redundant within a year when new studies come out and WoRMS changes its database to remove the "alternate representation" points. Once WoRMS accepts a new classification of Conus, then the text about this can be deleted in the genera articles. I suppose another way of doing this could be that rather than making an article about this one thing, instead perhaps...WoRMS and "alternate representations"... could be a section within the possible article you and I talked about, an article about the history of the classification of cone snails. As I said, I am not too sure which way this should go. We have not had to face a situation quite like this before. Thanks so much for all your hard work. Invertzoo (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! That kind of helps clarify what I was thinking. Somewhere back (maybe a year or two ago) I read a long article on the history of the "genus problem" in the Conidae. That was well before the new techniques in molecular phylogeny came out. I also read an interview with Alah Kohn, who was an old professor of mine in 1984 or 85. I e-mailed him and got more info, which I later used in an article I wrote for The Cone Collector. The T&T (2009) work had just come out, and I was thinking that maybe, just maybe, those guys were "the bright young students" that Kohn had referred to that MAY come along with a solution. Turns out he was referring to Meyer and another graduate student Dada (sp?), and the genetic testing that he had hoped would work out. Since T&T (2009) there have been a lot of DNA studies which have confirmed their cladistical analysis on many points, and proven them wrong on others (such as Conus chiangi which has been shown to be in the Strategoconus clade). So maybe, this whole issue with WoRMS and the "alternate representation" is only a bullet point (or subchapter if you will) in the whole historical genus problem with the Conidae which goes back 240 years. I think that you are right: (1) we need to keep a small paragraph on each genus article to allow each article to stand on its own "two feet", and (2) we MAY need a more in depth article to explain the 240 year history of "the genus problem" in the Conidae with the WoRMS and the "alternate representation" as part of that. This will allow for a more in depth discussion of each of the recent molecular phylogeny studies, their methods and findings, and the significance of all of this to taxonomists and paleontologists.Shellnut (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Status of new genus articles. I have completed the following: Austroconus, Calamiconus, and Chelyconus. I can photograph Conus purpurascens for the species article and for the Chelyconus genus article and attach it soon.Shellnut (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

One new thing

Hello again Shellnut and thanks for all your very good work! I wanted to explain one new thing to you. In the article Coninae, you may have noticed that when you created the list of genera, several of those new T&T genera came out as blue links, including Calibanus, Cylinder and Hermes. You may have been surprised, as you presumably did not think we had articles on those genera. However, if you clicked on those blue links, you would have discovered that the links take you to articles that have nothing to do with cone snails: articles the god Hermes, the solid form known as a cylinder, and a plant genus Calibanus. What we have to do in those situations is that the titles of the planned articles on the cone snail genera need to be as follows: Hermes (gastropod), Cylinder (gastropod) etc. But because that looks a bit ugly in a list of genera, you can use the "pipe" in the link to make the names appear as just Hermes and Cylinder while still allowing the red link to take you to what will be the new article pages with "gastropod" included in the title. That's what I did a couple of hours ago. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo!!! Thanks for catching that! I never looked at those blue links, and guessed (incorrectly) that there were genus articles of some sort out there - maybe by Shadowsador or someone. I learned about the pipe thingy a few weeks ago with one of the other articles I was working on, and have tried to use it where applicable in articles. I just did not know about the improper links there; is that what is called "disambiguous" or "disambiguation"? I will put together a genus article for Austroconus by copyig Africonus and changing out the genus name and species names and links to make it fit, then adding the descriptive section on shell morphology, radular morphology, and feeding habits (i.e. polychaete worms (marine worm eaters), piscivorous (i.e. fish), molluscivorous (mollusk eaters).) The whole radula and diet thing seems to link up nicely with the toxins or peptides that are specific to each species as it has now been shown to relate directly to the species' DNA which codes for the toxins!!! Nice to see the whole picture coming together in current 2011 literature.Shellnut (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's a good idea when you make new links and they come out as blue links, (especially in a new list of links) to check routinely to see whether the blue links all do actually link up to the right article, especially so if you tend to think that there might not already be articles for those things. But it's something that happens to all of us every once in a while, especially when you are working intently. I would never have guessed there was a plant genus Calibanus!

And yes, adjusting the title of a new article (or a planned article in this case), in order to differentiate it from another article with the same name, is a form of disambiguation. But when there is one word that can refer to more than two different things, we create a disambiguation page. Here is a really long disambiguation page for the word "Cone". Here is a smaller disambiguation page for the word "Gravel". Sometimes when there is a snail genus article and a plant genus article that are the same word, we make a "hat note" at the top of the snail page, using a template. You may have seen these, they are in italics and say things like, This article is about the land snail genus. For the plant genus see Xxxxx. Best to you again, Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Stinging

Hello again S. I noticed that in the article Conorbidae you (I assume it was you) put in a paragraph saying that "Like other species in the superfamily Conoidea these snails are predatory and venomous, able to inject neurotoxins into their prey with their radula. They are capable of "stinging" humans, therefore live ones should be handled carefully or not at all."

That paragraph was originally written just for the genus Conus, and I do know that all cone snails can sting humans, even little old Conus californicus, but honestly, can all the species in the superfamily Conoidea sting humans? I can hardly believe that some of the really small guys in the genera Drillia, Strictispira, etc, can get through our skin enough to sting us. Of course maybe they really can. I have never heard anyone say so, but perhaps you found that info in a reliable source?

Perhaps the wording needs tweaking. Perhaps it should say like "some other species", rather than "other species". Or perhaps it should say, "like the larger species..."?

Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! Yes, you are correct, I got that language from articles in Conidae. I do not have a specific reference in mind, but have seen general discussions in textbooks and references regarding the superfamily Conoidea and that having a radula and injecting some kind of toxin is part of how the superfamily is put together. Even Terebridae have radula that inject toxins. Whether the toxin can "harm" a person is antoher story, but a "sting" can occur from the radula nevertheness; similar to Coelenterates having nematocysts that sting. I think that the literature shows that the type of toxin is specific to the type of prey, so piscivorous (fish eating species) cones can paralyze fish and therefore harm vertebrates (including humans), whereas vermivorous (marine worm eaters), and molluscivorous (mollusk eaters) have toxins that may "itch", "burn" or "numb" a person but not paralyze or kill them. I know of an oral story (first hand) of a diver, who at 50 feet, found "cute little cone" and put it in his mask - it "stung him" on the nose, his nose and eyes swelled, he panicked ahd shot up without stopping to decompress and got nitrogen narcosis. Finally, I do not think that "size matters" as it is the specific toxin that is dangerous. I could look for citations, such as maybe in T&T (2009) or some of the neurotoxin literature. Do you think it is necessary or is it enough in the description of the superfamily?Shellnut (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is true that all the Conoidea are venomous, and they all sting their prey, they are all toxoglossans. But, as a parallel, all spiders are venomous and they all have fangs, and some of the smaller ones may try to bite you if you pick them up but they cannot pierce our human skin, it is too thick for them. I am assuming that the same thing is true of the smaller species in the Conoidea. I am sure the toxins are just as nasty, but the question is , is their delivery system too small to get their "harpoon" through our skin? I am quite certain that all cone snails can sting a human, but I have never heard of anyone being stung by a little turrid or small terebrid. Certainly back when I used to handle live ones, I was never stung by small turrids and I would hold them in my hand. Invertzoo (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

All true! I drew the parallel with nematocysts that sting humans even though they are extremely small, and did not think about certain spiders that can't bite through our skin with small mouthparts. So, should I look for citations on that, or just reword it?Shellnut (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way is fine, it's just a question of what you feel like doing. Sometimes trying to research something feels like a chore, other times it is a pleasure. Invertzoo (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I will look for more references. For what it is worth though, the phrase "dart" used by whomever initially wrote the intro on Conus may be more appropriately a radula with (dart or harpoon) as an explanation. I do not know if you want me tweaking around too much with the intro of such an established article. Let me know if it is OK.Shellnut (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the intro and yes, you are right that it did need some fixing. It was written quite a few years ago and has probably not been revised since then. I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and rewrote that part. I used "radula tooth" rather than "radula" as I think that is clearer, it is after all one highly modified radula tooth that does the injecting of the venom. I guess we should also look at the section "Harpoon and venom" because that may need a bit of a fix up too. By the way, most of us forget this, but maybe I will post a reminder on the project talk page that we should try to keep articles, and particularly their intros, intelligible to a general reader as much as possible. Articles should not be aimed squarely at a specialist in the subject. And another point that often gets neglected by all of us, the intro (aka the "lede") is supposed to be a concise summary of the whole article. I guess intros get neglected partly because summaries are hard to write well, and also an intro need updating every time significantly more info is added to the body of an article. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course I do not mind! I don't "own" the article or have an ego about it one way or the other. I noticed that it was awkward and probably needed a helping hand, so I thought that I would mention it to you. I just did not want to take a stab at it without first running it by you since it is (I believe) a major article as it is the primary genus in the family, and I (being still a newbie) might not understand the reasoning for the manner in which the "lede" was written. Simply put, "no problem!" On another note, I uploaded a few images last night, and put together three genus articles using the Africonus format. Some of them have a few more bits of data and references, and where there were only a few species listed in the genus I disposed of the two column format as it looked awkward. What do you think?Shellnut (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's just my English background coming out in excessive politeness! We were all raised to do that. I did look at the Austroconus and Calamiconus articles. The Jaspidiconus and Pseudoconorbis articles are still in the old short form. I see you added info to the Conus article. Was there another whole new one? Invertzoo (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Miralda diadema

Recently you've uploaded your photo of Miralda diadema. I've just created the article and added your photo and another image from the original paper by W.H. Dall and Paul Bartsch. As you can see, your identification of the species was right. JoJan (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks JoJan! I still have to reshoot those shells with the other camera setup and see if I can get better images.Shellnut (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 19d247d9850d895ebee7870b3cf04b99

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! 14:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Odostomia circinnata

The photo you've uploaded to the Commons as File:Odostomia circinnata.jpg is actually Oscilla circinata A. Adams, 1867 (synonym : Odostomia (Odetta) circinata (A. Adams, 1867). I've just created the article with your photo, together with an image from the original papers by W.H. Dall and P. Bartsch. JoJan (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

In the future, Coninae

I am sure you have thought of this Shellnut, but this is just a few notes for all of us for the future – I'll post this on the project talk page too. When WoRMS finally fully accepts a new classification of what is now Conus, using "new" genera and "new" families (presumably those that will be used in the anticipated upcoming paper on this topic) we will need to do a lot of changes:

Make family articles for any "new" families, and list all their genera
Greatly revise existing Conidae article
Create genus articles for any additional genera or different genera, i.e. ones that were not recognized by T&T (this could happen!)
If that does happen, make any necessary revisions in any articles that are affected by genera that are changed compared with the T&T taxonomy
Revise all of the current genus taxoboxes to remove the existing taxonomy from family to genus levels, and put in the "new" families as needed
Remove, change or greatly trim the text from the "new" genus articles where they refer to alternative representation
Revise the text and taxoboxes for all of the existing species articles that are currently in Coninae
Make major changes to the "List of Conus species" article
Presumably make the article Coninae into a redirect

Invertzoo (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again invertzoo! And, let's not forget #10 ... adding info in all species articles taxobox's (for now) reflecting the "alternate representation" name under the synonym section, and if/when the anticipated "mega molecular study" is published by Christopher Meyer (and others), then updating it all again. I know, I'm on it!!!Shellnut (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It is, and will be, quite a lot of work! Phew! Glad you are around! Invertzoo (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: all of these changes needs to wait for the future when WoRMS accepts a whole new taxonomy for this group. We can't show two systems of taxonomy simultaneously in the same articles, and we can't shift over to the "new" taxonomy until WoRMS does. Invertzoo (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cone shell allies, family Conilithidae and genera thereunder

Hi Invertzoo! I see your tweaks on Californiconus and expect that we (me and the mouse in my pocket) will be making those changes on all Conilithidae genera once you have gotten them clear and concise (and are happy with them). There are three families and five subfamilies of cone shell allies, which will necessitate one new family article, Conilithidae, so these genus introductions will have to be used for all 17 genera in that family, with corresponding alternative representation language. I suppose I ought to draft a proposed family article and put it in my "sandbox". Subfamily articles can come later, and are less of an issue. Any thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Invertzoo! I have completed a rough draft of the family article for Conilithidae and put it in my sandbox for review. I still have to put in a description section where the shell and radular morphology is detailed. Lunch breask is over, back to work. :(Shellnut (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Shellnut. I need to explain that I am going away next Wednesday for about 12 days. Between now and then I have a whole lot of packing and other preparation to do, so unfortunately I will not have very much time for Wikipedia over the next 6 days. And while I am away (shelling and relaxing) I will also be spending a lot less time on Wikipedia. As for the Conolithidae article, even after some more reworking (I have done some already) I believe this should not go into article space until WoRMS finally accepts a new cone snail taxonomy. I think Conolithidae needs to stay on a subpage of your user page, and the family should also not yet be listed in the taxoboxes of the genera and species involved. I say that because having two competing systems of taxonomy present simultaneously on Wikipedia is a really bad idea, because of how confusing it would be to readers. I suspect the only way we could put all this info up now would be to have the info on the "new" families grouped together in an article entitled "Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009" or something similar. The "new" genera articles are more easily justified because WoRMS has the species accepted as "alternative representations" but WoRMS has not accepted the families at all yet. This is all very complicated, but I believe I am thinking clearly about it. I hope so! Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, we don't accept gastropods.com as an authority on taxonomy because Eddie Hardy is not a professional taxonomist. So I would suggest you not use it at all as a reference to support taxonomic info. That site is very useful for images however. Invertzoo (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Invertzoo! So I will move the Gastropods.com cites to the external links area. I understand the above on Conilithidae given that WoRMS has not recognized it, despite peer reviewed articles in 2010 and 2011. WoRMS did recognize Conorbidae quickly enough though. I take it that you would like to see an article entitled "Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009" or something similar. That would be easy enough to do, and then place the Conilithidae under there. Do you want a draft of that in my "other sandbox" or on line? I would, of course, use the "alternative representation" section to link the articles and show the fact that WoRMS has not fully recognized the T&T taxonomy. Best wishes on your trip!!!Shellnut (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sure Shellnut, if you have the energy you could try out a draft of Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 in your other sandbox. You notice I used the phrase "cone snail" in the title because otherwise it gets so complicated saying Conidae in this person's sense, or Coninae in that person's sense, or Conus in whose sense, or sensu stricto /sensu lato and so on.

The reason WoRMS accepted Conorbidae is that the Conorbidae are not cone snails, but what we used to call turrids. As for the actual cone snails, the whole 600-species true-cone-snail group has been a serious headache for 200 years to taxonomists! It is reasonable that some of the best taxonomists like Dr. Bouchet want to be cautious about embracing the suggestions of the first two people who try to divide up this very difficult group. T&T almost certainly did make some choices that can be significantly improved upon, and that will be improved upon. WoRMS is a database, and like us they have limited staff (except their staff is way more professional than ours!) I am sure that WoRMS are not looking to change 600 plus articles in complicated ways only to have to change most or many of them all over again within a year or so. In any case, whether or not we approve of their actions, WoRMS is our basis, and we have to write about their choices in a perfectly neutral way. No point of view allowed.

Just another reminder, I won't have nearly as much time as usually on here over the next 2 and 1/2 weeks, so I may not get the chance to really review or fix up either new articles or changes to older ones. You may want to go ahead with other items, and leave some of this cone-snail taxonomy-related editing until I get back again. It is a delicate matter to get it just right in terms of what we do and how exactly we do it, and how exactly we word it. Wikipedia is the 5th most used website in the world. We have a lot of responsibility, and we have to be careful how we use it. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a great trip Invertzoo!!! I will not put anything controversial on line while you are gone - not to worry! :) That's why I suggested "sandbox No. 2" for the draft of such an article. Thank you for the assistance, mentoring, and encouragement!!! I will continue to use the approved format for genus articles, and will clean up the other Conilithidae genuses to match what you did with Californiconus, removing the family and subfamily stuff from the taxobox and move the Gastropods.com cite to the external links area so people can go look and see photos. I will most definitely be extra careful to avoid expressing a POV, but rather to maintain a neutral position and put historical taxonomy out there with full references to either peer reviewed journals, published texts, and WoRMS. Have a great time! Would you like me to send you via e-mail a possible species list for the area? I collected shells south of Tampa Bay and just north of Sanibel a few years ago and got a pretty extensive list that I could run a couple of page report on. I would be happy to forward that to you if you believe it would be interesting or fun to have. Enjoy yourselves!!!!!Shellnut (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Shellnut for the good wishes, and thanks for the SW Florida species list. I will try to check in to Wikipedia while I am away, every few days, but I may not want to spend a lot of time online.

This morning I went and looked again at the Californiconus article. As you will see, I trimmed it and tweaked it a bit more. Because there is only one species in that genus (right?) I changed the sentences about "this group of species" into "this species" and so on. Of course all that will have to be changed back again if you copy the whole article to make other genera articles.

Just two small things: 1. Try to remember to italicize every genus name whenever you mention a genus name, even Conus. 2. Only link the name of a taxon once, not every time you use it in an article.

Many thanks and good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)