Talk:Cone snail

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brittney521.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance to humans section

I suggest placing it above the species section. The list is so long that readers may not know it's there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it just now. Feel free to go ahead and do stuff like that yourself. Of course the table of contents always shows what is where, but I do understand the point you are making. Also the list being so long we may I think want to make it into columns rather than a straight list. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing species

None of the Conus species published in the various issues of Visaya[1] appear to be included in this article's list. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: some are included, but not all. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conus terryni for example is included in the cited list (http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=137813) but missing from this article. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. JoJan (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Visaya is an OK source. I should point out in general that Conus is an extremely messy genus full of unresolved synonymy, mainly because so many shell collectors love the cones as beautiful shells. Shell collectors found them fascinating in centuries past, and still do now. Some of the more serious collectors have often thought that they have found a new species when in fact what they have is a local variant in form or color. There are a few less rigorous publications out there that still allow unqualified people to publish new species descriptions, and as a result, a lot of new synonyms have been introduced to the literature, which is not helpful, and actually does science a disservice. As a result of so many names many of which are probably synonyms, it becomes a matter of an expert scientists's individual opinion as to which species are actually legitimate, taxonomically speaking.
As a result of this problem, on Wikipedia for a species list within a genus article, because of "no original research" it seems clear to me that we need to use a list that is taken from one reference, and not a synthesis, a combined list which is derived from more than one published list. However we can add extra species like the ones in Visaya as a separate section at the bottom of the list giving a reference for those, and give an explanation for what they are. Invertzoo (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, of course I am ready to listen to anyone else who has an opposing viewpoint on this. Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a longer discussion on this same topic please see the talk page of the gastropod project [lists and sources for Conus, and all other genera - important!|here.] Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms in taxobox

May I remove the "[[ ]]" as this makes them either circular or potentially so? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, please go ahead. Just as a note in general, we may want some of the most commonly used synonyms to be created as redirect pages. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columns

I was considering adding columns (like I did for Anagyrus) as long as anyone has any objections? Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. I actually tried but things didn't fit right. I used this format because it autofits: {{div col|cols=2}} {{div col end}}

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK. I used the format that I got from another page that had it that way. I actually didn't know there was other formats and one that autofills! Would have made my copy/paste/preview method a whole lot simpler hehehe!Calaka (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I have it at 3 columns but I am unsure what the minimum sized monitors are these days (I admit mine is a bit wider than the average!) so maybe it will need to be changed to two columns?Calaka (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I really like the column format indicated above. I only rarely encounter it being used. It is very useful. As for the article, maybe two cols, as three wraps the authority. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right! It is much better! Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative representations

I am not much into malacology, but since the question of clarification of "Alternative representations" has arisen, I find that, as an attempt at improvement of the explanation, the current update fails to shows any. Is the initiative still in progress? JonRichfield (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jon! I was working on adding the references section over. There is a lot of molecular phylogeny work going on right now, including what has been dubbed a "mega molecular" project. Citations to more current publications are now listed.Shellnut (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SN, thanks. I can well understand the problems. Ever since molecular phylogeny hit the fan it has become impossible to be sure of oneself in any wide field of taxonomy, even if you are a pro, which I certainly am not. The sheer scale of the volume of work waiting means that it is hard enough to determine the most effective taxonomic philosophy, let alone the definitive cladistic situation. Meanwhile, I was just asking! All the best, :-) JonRichfield (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harpoon and venoms

After reading the first paragraph in "Harpoon and venoms", I came across the next, short paragraph:

"The tropical cone snail Conus purpurascens uses its special modified radular teeth to fire a retrievable hollow dart at small fish and inject a toxin. The toxin rapidly paralyses the fish, which the cone snail then swallows."

It seems that, except for the mention of Conus purpurascens, the information in this paragraph repeats information given in the previous paragraph. Can anyone suggest a way to consolidate this paragraph – and even the next paragraph – with the previous paragraph to avoid repetition?CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

This note is in case anyone wonders how come there is an article called "Cone snail" as well as an article called "Conidae".

Here's the thing: I think that almost all shell collectors know what they mean by cone snails. However, since 1993, there have been massive changes back and forth in the taxonomy of the superfamily to which these sea snails belong. Those changes have meant that the cone snails started out as one family, Conidae, then become a subfamily, Coninae, for a couple of decades, and now are back to family status again. So we ended up with two articles for some sort of ongoing stability. It might be good to keep them separate for the time being, in case the taxonomy changes once again -- with new discoveries in molecular phylogeny, the taxonomy of gastropods is very much in flux, so wide-ranging future changes are possible. Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cone snail. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Conidae into Cone snail

This has been brought up before, but I figured I would formally propose a merger. As noted a few years ago by InvalidOS, "Cone snail" is just the common name for Conidae, so there is no reason to have separate pages. Per WP:COMMONNAME, keeping Cone snail as the title and merging Conidae into it seems preferable to the opposite. Invertzoo and Catfurball have previously argued that the pages should be kept separate because of the possibility that some future taxonomic revision will result in Conidae no longer being the proper taxonomic name for cone snails. However, we can't predict the future and, in the event that such a taxonomic revision occurs, the page(s) would need to be reworked anyway, so there is no benefit to preemptively maintaining two separate pages with identical scopes on the off chance those scopes someday diverge. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I personally prefer the option of keeping Conidae over Cone Snail as certainly above genus level common names are too vague to be meaningful, however I will support either way. I do not agree with keeping them separate "in case" of changing taxonomy, if that was likely at the family level it would at least have been proposed already somewhere. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And like Scott above, I favor merging into Conidae and for much the same reason. Keeping two articles separate "just in case" when they are commonly considered synonymous, and have been for some time, is unnecessary effort. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While both articles cover the same group of organisms, the scopes of the articles are different and the overlap is surprisingly little. Cone snail covers the biology with a short taxonomy section, while Conidae is mainly about the taxonomy and how it has changed. Merging all the taxonomy into cone snail would unbalance the article, and cutting the historical information would seem to waste the efforts made by previous editors. Would moving Conidae to Taxonomy of Conidae be an alternative solution; the section on the venom could be moved to cone snail, which does seem the appropriate title based on Wikipedia guidelines (although I also prefer the family name). The "Species" section on the taxonomy in Cone snail could be trimmed to a short summary of the current taxonomy with a main topic link. Either way, the species section needs updating as it says WoRMS retains (or did in 2011) all the species in Conus, even though the 2015 taxonomy update was from the main editor of the WoRMS mollusc pages who also made the changes on WoRMS. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on the Gastropoda for the last 20 years and I have always used the scientific name for naming an new article, as common names may not always cover the same content. The article Conidae was not created by me but I contributed more than 50 % of the text. The article Conidae is mainly about the taxonomy and should be retained as such. The article "Cone snail" (to which I contributed almost 20 %) covers mainly other aspects and can, in my opinion, be retained as such. If necessary the section about the venom in Conidae could be, partly or in whole, transferred to "Cone snail". If, on the other hand, only one article is preferred by the community instead of the present two, my preference goes to Conidae, as this would be in line with all the other articles I have written (and also with the commons and wikidata). In this case "Cone snail" could be merged and become just a link to Conidae. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose. We are not waiting on some hypothetical future taxonomy Mangeliidae and Conorbidae were split from Conidae. Conorbidae has the unsourced statement "despite the name of the family, which might seem to suggest otherwise, this group of gastropods are not cone snails". Why aren't they cone snails? Because they're not (currently) in Conidae? We also have an article for Conilithidae as another family split from Conidae, although this family is not accepted by WoRMS. Plantdrew (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cone_snail"