Wikispecies:Village Pump

Archives
1	(2004-09-21/2005-01-05)	2	(2005-01-05/2005-08-23)
3	(2005-08-24/2005-12-31)	4	(2006-01-01/2005-05-31)
5	(2006-06-01/2006-12-16)	6	(2006-12-17/2006-12-31)
7	(2007-01-01/2007-02-28)	8	(2007-03-01/2007-04-30)
9	(2007-05-01/2007-08-31)	10	(2007-09-01/2007-10-31)
11	(2007-11-01/2007-12-31)	12	(2008-01-01/2008-02-28)
13	(2008-03-01/2008-04-28)	14	(2008-04-29/2008-06-30)
15	(2008-07-01/2008-09-30)	16	(2008-10-01/2008-12-25)
17	(2008-12-26/2009-02-28)	18	(2009-03-01/2009-06-30)
19	(2009-07-01/2009-12-31)	20	(2010-01-01/2010-06-30)
21	(2010-07-01/2010-12-31)	22	(2011-01-01/2011-06-30)
23	(2011-07-01/2011-12-31)	24	(2012-01-01/2012-12-31)
25	(2013-01-01/2013-12-31)	26	(2014-01-01/2014-12-31)
27	(2015-01-01/2015-01-31)	28	(2015-02-01/2015-02-28)
29	(2015-02-28/2015-04-29)	30	(2015-04-29/2015-07-19)
31	(2015-07-19/2015-09-23)	32	(2015-09-23/2015-11-21)
33	(2015-11-21/2015-12-31)	34	(2016-01-01/2016-04-17)
35	(2016-03-22/2016-05-01)	36	(2016-05-01/2016-07-12)
37	(2016-07-13/2016-09-30)	38	(2016-10-01/2016-12-04)
39	(2016-12-04/2017-01-17)	40	(2017-01-18/2017-01-28)
41	(2017-01-29/2017-02-13)	42	(2017-02-14/2017-03-21)
43	(2017-03-20/2017-08-11)	44	(2017-08-10/2017-12-07)
45	(2017-12-08/2018-01-08)	46	(2018-01-19/2018-03-11)
47	(2018-03-11/2018-09-11)	48	(2018-09-01/2019-02-17)
49	(2019-02-22/2019-06-18)	50	(2019-06-19/2019-10-06)
51	(2019-10-07/2019-12-23)	52	(2019-12-24/2020-04-03)
53	(2020-04-03/2020-07-16)	54	(2020-07-17/2020-09-05)
55	(2020-09-08/2020-11-27)	56	(2020-11-27/2021-06-21)
57	(2021-06-05/2021-09-24)	58	(2021-09-25/2022-01-24)
59	(2022-01-26/2022-02-27)	60	(2022-02-27/2022-04-13)
61	(2022-04-14/2022-05-10)	62	(2022-07-01/2023-12-17)
63	(2022-12-24/2023-04-20)	64	(2023-04-20/2023-08-29)
65	(2023-09-01/2023-12-27)	66	(2023-11-18/2024-02-14)
67	(2024-02-14/2024-xx-xx)

This script has recently become non-functional. Fixing it requires a far greater expertise that I have. You can have a look through here. Fingers crossed. Andyboorman (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have contacted the script originator as well. Andyboorman (talk) 15:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Boorman: The only difference I can see between your most recent version (October 2019) and the most recent version of Rillke's original script (September 2018) is that at the end of line 56 in your file the text says csrfToken whereas in the original it says editToken. I've added a screenshot were you can see the diffs marked with purple text (Rillke's version to the left, yours to the right).

Change that single word in your script and see what happens. An easier way may be to import Rilke's entire script, instead of copying the code. In order to do that simply replace all code in your commons.js file with the following code string:

importScript('User:Rillke/createRedirects.js')

You may need to refresh your browser and/or clear the browser cashe and cookies in order to see the changes. Good luck!
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Boorman: I see that you've now updated your common.js file. Did it help? Tommy Kronkvist (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

┌───────┘ For reference, the discussion with the JavaScript author can be found in Wikimedia Commons: User talk:Rillke.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

Nothing seems to have happened or changed. Such a shame. Andyboorman (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: The script has not been edited so I can only assume it is something to do with a recent wiki update. Andyboorman (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy: I've made a small change to your common.js file, reflecting the fact that we've added tags for automatic localization (i.e. {{int:Synonyms}} and {{int:Synonymy}}) to some of our Synonymy sections. Any improvement?
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: No seems to make things worse. Do I need to remove it and reload? If I could remember how to do that! Andyboorman (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy Boorman: I've reverted my edit of the file. I forgot that my additions were partly made up of wiki code. Your commons.js file is 100% JavaScript code which most likely isn't at all compatible with wiki code syntax. I've got a workaround coming up, but that will have to wait a while. It's +30 °C here and that makes me somewhat incompatible with most programming languages...
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

@RLJ: @MPF: Has anybody come across a template for this resource? The Gymnosperm Database. If not is it possible to create one? Andyboorman (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've never seen one and have never made one, but then, I find template creation tricky. One thing to watch for though, the urls of the pages do change from time to time, presumably changes in the server he uses. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andy, MPF, and RLJ: There's one available in English Wikipedia: w:Template:Gymnosperm Database. It utilizes a bunch of subpages in order to sort out prefixes and URLs plus distinguish between taxon ranks etc, so it may take some time to set it up correctly. Today is a busy day for me, but I'll create a local Wikispecies one early tomorrow morning (I'm in UTC+2, dst). I'll report back here when it's ready and after that it should be fairly straightforward for anyone to use. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk),13:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Many thanks. Andyboorman (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It turns out we already have a template called {{Gymnosperm Database}}. It will need some work though. Stay tuned. :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

Real life got a bit more busy here in Sweden, due to the oncoming midsummer. It's a Viking thing I guess... Please excuse the the delay. Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC).Reply

Thanks for your efforts and enjoy the solstice! Andyboorman (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our page on Nectriella has red inks for both N. moelleri and N. muelleri. Are these not the same name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

According to Index Fungorum, these are different species: Nectriella moelleri Henn. [as 'mölleri'], Hedwigia 36(4): 219 (1897) and Nectriella muelleri Samuels, Rogerson, Rossman & J.D. Sm., Can. J. Bot. 62(9): 1899 (1984). --Thiotrix (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Index Fungorum lists ([1]; italicisation per original):

Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f.sp. aeschynomenes J.T. Daniel, G.E. Tempelton, R.J. Sm. & W.T. Fox [as 'aeschynomene'], Weed Science 21(4): 304 (1973)

The page at [2] suggests that this taxon has "Preferred name: Colletotrichum aeschynomenes B.S. Weir & P.R. Johnst. 2012".

I have created an entry for the former work, at {{Daniel, et al., 1973}}. We have Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and Colletotrichum aeschynomenes, neither of which mention the work or its authors. What else needs to be done? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Over the last couple of weeks or so, I have resolved all of the many red links on our Smith disambiguation page, except for these two:

• Alex Smith, entomologist
• Aston B. Smith, entomologist

about which I can find no dates, disambiguation information, nor related publications or taxon names. Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could possibly be a spelling mistake: Ashton B. Smith. Quasi-grip (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is also an M. Alex Smith. Both of these entries were added by User:Neferkheperre, who also created those two articles. Quasi-grip (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aston B. Smith is indeed a tyop. I corrected it. I could not find Alex Smith at all, it is probably an overlooked M. Alex Smith. I deleted it. Resolving all those red links was a formidable task. Some of the Chinese names look even more so. Neferkheperre (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have just added two types of Avibase IDs to our {{Authority control}} template:

• Avibase taxon ID (P2026)
• Avibase person ID (P12837)}

Please let me know if you spot any related errors.

{{AviBase}} is also available, for use as a reference. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached here in PDF format for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at cec@wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our page at Walker lists:

George Walker (1734?–1807; G.Walker), British naturalist

as a red link.

Is this the same person as en:George Walker (mathematician), whose dates match? What is his taxonomic contribution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@IFPNI Staff: do you know if they are the same person? Since you added this person to Walker, that is. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have the following in our archives:

Richard J. Goulden provides further information about George Walker in his The Faversham Book Trade, 1730-1900 (Faversham: The Faversham Society, 1996), p. 42:

Walker, George (1737?-1792)                bookseller and stationer

Possibly the son of George and Lydia Walker of Faversham; married Mary Pratt, widow, at Faversham on 5 January 1768.

George Walker was admitted as a freeman of Faversham and as bookseller and stationer on 11 June 1767. He insured with the Sun in 1780 for £500 also as bookseller and stationer [Maxted, Index to Insurance Policies, Exeter 1992]. His moment of fame came when he published his own Testacea minuta rariora in 1784.

George Walter died aged 55 and was buried at Faversham on 17 April 1792. His will refers to him as a stationer, and also to his marriage bond of 31 December 1767.

IPNI was notified for the necessary updates. IFPNI Staff (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thank you! @Pigsonthewing: See above information provided by IFPNI Staff. This George Walker is not the same person as the mathematician, he just has the same name. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

...Checking for myself, I understand that this is meant to complete the minimal data at IPNI for "G. Walker (fl. 1798)". According to AlgaeBase and IPNI itself, "G. Walker" named the protist genus Lagena G.Walker & Jacob (or Walker & Boys, 1784?) and the species Lagena sulcata G.Walker & Jacob in Kanmacher's 1798 "Essays on the microscope", which is available here. However this work doesn't mention Walker's full name, only that "Mr. Walker of Faversham" published a work on shells in 1784, authored by himself and William Boys and assisted by a late Edward Jacob. (See [3]) Finding this 1784 work ([4]), reveals this Mr. Walker to be "Geo. Walker", a bookseller from Faversham. "Geo." is short for George, so his full name does seem to be "George Walker". But I don't know if there's any link to the mathematician otherwise: "George Walker" could easily have been the name of an unrelated person who was living at the same time as the mathematician. Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Wikidata query shows people with an IPNI author ID (P586), but no Wikispecies entry.

So that's just biologists botanists; not zoologist. Not the taxa they described and not the papers they wrote.

There are 29,027 of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

That would be botanists I presume, biologists is a lapsus. And BTW I am probably one of them (one species of microalga, joint authorship back in 1974). Not that it is particularly important to me, except for the sake of completeness maybe... Tony 1212 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lapsus corrected; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, I'm currently working on cleaning up Ralph Vary Chamberlin. The publication Pamona College Journal of Entomology (see 1910) was changed to Journal of Entomology and Zoology. The previous title of the publication has a different ISSN (2831-9435 [5]). In these instances, is it best to create a new page, redirect links referencing the old ISSN to the more recent page (i.e. ISSN 2831-9435 -> 0095-8530), or just reference the more recent ISSN? Parasiticfrisk (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Create a ISSN page for 2831-9435. Burmeister (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I have created the new page and linked the corresponding Wikidata entry (Q51520043). Parasiticfrisk (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Colleagues. I have just started to use Wikispecies as a first source for data entries required for adding missing accepted plant names to IPNI. To date I have concentrated largely on subgenus, sections, subsections and infraspecifics. Wikispecies has become so data rich for plants that it is now very useful starting point. Working with IPNI has also highlighted some missing WS data, such as protologues and type species giving this exercise a synergy. Thank you to our botanists and contributors! Registration on IPNI is open to all, although the data entry requirements for names are very specific and so a degree of taxonomic familiarity is required. If you have other wider uses outside of wikis, I would urge you to share. Thanks and best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There will be few if any updates to IPNI for a couple of weeks, as the staff are in attendance at Nomenclature Section of the congress. There will be changes to the Code and see this PDF for a summary of proposals. One of significance to plants' entries in WS will be the terms type/type species or genus. PDF of changes to e International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants

Happy reading and we await developments. Andyboorman (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies currently has Thismiaceae as a distinct family, albeit with a disclaimer: "This is a taxonomic opinion of Thismiaceae segregated from Burmanniaceae s.l., only partially supported by phylogenetic evidence.". However according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thismiaceae, APG II, III and IV all merge Thismiaceae into Burmanniaceae, as does the POWO link given on the WS Thismiaceae page, which simply reads: "* Govaerts, R. et al. 2024. Thismiaceae in Kew Science Plants of the World Online. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published online. Accessed: 2024 Mar. 1. Reference page" - and is thus somewhat misleading in my opinion...

On the other hand, Tropicos does currently list Thismiaceae as accepted ("legitimate"), see https://www.tropicos.org/name/50304863, thus departing from APG treatment. IPNI appears confused: the new (2024) genus Relictithismia is placed in their Thismiaceae, but other genera including Thismia are placed in Burmanniaceae, see https://www.ipni.org/n/30015452-2 . I have not checked other major online sources at this time, just wondering what is best for WS to do in this case, i.e., follow APG or not?? Tony 1212 (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

IPNI list the family for Relictithismia as Thismiaceae, because that is what Suetsugu et al. (2024) entered on the database. This is clear on reading the paper. The other genera were changed through edits and updates post APGIV. Ideally a Japanese speaker needs to contact the author on kenji.suetsugu@gmail.com and point out the problems caused by their taxonomy. IPNI, like WS does not take sides in taxonomic disputes or anomalies and sticks to the author's data entry. The problem is that if WS unilaterally changes the family for Relictithismia then this will be original research, which is banned here and the edits will be reverted. This is my rationale for keeping a page for Thismiaceae at least until this problem is resolved. Hope this helps. Andyboorman (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, when Relictithismia is added to POWO (which should not be too far off) I am guessing it will be placed in Burmanniaceae, so that would create a precedent for WS to follow if it desires ... no need to contact the authors of the paper I would say, that is published and done. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

For Relictithismia in IRMNG (added just now as part of a new batch of names via IPNI) I took an executive decision to place it in Burmanniaceae, since (as a rule) I do not place genus names in currently unaccepted families (at least in the IRMNG universe), hence https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11938605 ... but WS is welcome to follow its own guidelines of course! Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As a curator of IRMNG it is your right to use whichever taxonomy fits your preferences. Like you I also await POWO, but note that IPNI and POWO inhabit the same RBG Kew universe. I will contact IPNI after they return from congress. WS is more collaborative and circumspect and has to follow wiki rules and conventions. I will add disputed to Thismiaceae. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tony 1212: I notice that IRMNG do not accept the recently segregated Afrothismiaceae, a recently described monotypic family. A few months ago I contacted Kew about this and they were very reluctant to accept a monotypic family even with the evidence that Cheek et al. provided, hence it has not appeared in POWO. It is in IPNI, because they do not make judgements about acceptance or synonymy and it was legitimately published. However, the other members of the old Thismiaceae have been formally transferred to Burmanniaceae and therefore that option is available to them, if they wish to follow APG et al.. It seems that there is no consensus and there are are two distinct taxonomic camps - those following Burmanniaceae s.l. and another preferring its dismantling. There appears to be no definitive evidence favouring one over the other, but on balance s.l. could be favoured on both the weight of evidence and nomenclatural stability. A individual botanist is free to take whatever side suits them, unlike WS/Wiki. Andyboorman (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Andy... RE

> "I notice that IRMNG do not accept the recently segregated Afrothismiaceae, a recently described monotypic family"

- that is more likely to be an oversight/latency issue, since I/we monitor the new literature only at irregular intervals and may miss some newly proposed names at ranks higher than genus... we try to keep the genera updated as the higher priority, but as we encounter new families they would certainly be candidate names for addition as well. For most groups we would take the publishing authors as the "trusted source" to follow for accepted/unaccepted status of proposed new names/taxonomic arrangements in the absence of anything else (unless in a known controversial area, or there is some other reason not to accept a particular author's treatment) but for higher plant families we generally wait to see what POWO does, that being our current preferred "trusted source" to follow in that area. So in the case of Afrothismiaceae, there are 2 issues at play for IRMNG: the first is that we have to notice it (thanks for the alert; since it was not published alongside any new genus names we may not have found it, or only belatedly as cited elsewhere), and the second is that until and only if it is "accepted" in POWO, it would not be "accepted" in IRMNG. It could be entered into IRMNG as "unaccepted", however IRMNG makes no attempt to list all unaccepted family names, just (in the main) those that have some other reason to be there such as having come in as "accepted" with data previously ingested (I may have made an exception for plants if I had a good source of unaccepted families to use such as the work of Reveal - would have to look further there).

Nevertheless I can and will add the reference to the IRMNG "literature" module, plus a note on the relevant genus page that a new monotypic family has been proposed for that genus, however is awaiting more general acceptance... I just checked Tropicos (https://tropicos.org/name/50329549) and they do not currently seem to accept Afrothismiaceae either (or again it may just be latency). Of course they place Afrothismia in Thismiaceae, which as noted above, is a discrepancy cf. POWO already :) Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tony 1212: POWO have now moved Afrothismia to Burmanniaceae See here. Best regards. Andyboorman (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, now done (comment and new citation added to the IRMNG Afrothismia page https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1069935, but no taxon page (at this time) for the proposed new family) - still in 2 minds whether or not to do the latter until/unless it becomes "accepted" in either Tropicos or POWO, in other words is more than just a proposal in the Cheek et al. paper).

Just noting as an aside that I/we am very happy to receive alerts of any other novelties or likely-to-be-accepted changes at rank above genus that IRMNG may have missed (we have other routes for getting the genera, but of course might miss some of these as well :) - you can use my WS talk page for this, or email info@irmng.org (which is monitored by more persons than just myself) if you so desire. For most extant groups (plants, animals, protists, fungi, more...) we are using Ruggiero et al's 2015 treatment as a default position but will modify this if it appears that consensus has moved on since then - according to some "trusted source" in the main, for internal consistency, where such source/s exist of course! Tony 1212 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman:RE POWO have now moved Afrothismia to Burmanniaceae ... would it not have been there all along, since they do not accept Thismiaceae?? (I had it there anyway, from GRIN in 2011). Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Will do re alerts. Sorry must have misread your POWO discrepancy note above. Andyboorman (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Chromista is polyphyletic according to Adl et al. 2019, I recommend placing the "chromists" into monophyletic groups (such as Diaphoretickes→Tsar→Sar (in case of members of Sar), Diaphoretickes→Haptista (in case of Haptista, like haptophytes) etc.), and using "Chromista" as a group formerly used as a taxon, just like Protozoa was formerly believed to be and used as a taxon, but is not. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, Hacrobia was formerly believed to be a taxon, but according to Adl et al. 2019, the two groups Haptista and Cryptista are not sisters, and Sar is not included in Hacrobia, so it is also polyphyletic. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply