Talk:Pythonidae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Antaresia or Bothrochilus?

Several of the species listed as Antaresia are referred to in many websites as Bothrochilus. I've left them listed here as both... hopeflly someone who knows more about snakes will be able to sort this out... Grutness|^hello? 01:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redirect

Let's make this a redirect to python. That article is about the family as well, and there is no need for two articles on the same topic. "Python" is the common name and the article is slightly better, as well (more info on the bottom). Dawson has merged any extra info into python, so there should be no problems redirecting. Any objections? – ugen64 21:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection, I think even if people are looking for the "family" of Pythonidae, most likely they will be looking at python in the first place anyway, and the term "python" doesn't necessarily cover just that singular genus, and for most concerns, refers to the family as a whole anyway. -Dawson 22:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes.  :) The problem is that this provides the basis for the genera and thus, the individual species. There is always the problem of having the common name as well as the classification, and although I don't think there is a clean answer, I think having them both is better. Redirects muddle the entire thing. IMO. I've had the same discussion for Praying mantis and Mantodea. Wikibofh_(talk) 22:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A redirect and merge solves the problem of having two articles that are essentially the same. Pythonidae should re-direct to Python for ease of use and to eliminate the redundancy. Hamster Sandwich 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family or subfamily

The Pythons are indeed sometimes classified as subfamily (Pythonidae), eg by Itis. But not the EMBL Reptile Database, wich is used as main source for the classification for reptiles, and classifies pythons as a subfamily (Pythoninae). Also wikispecies, the Dutch and (mainly) the German wikipedia use the term Pythoninae. For example; the article Python refers to EMBL. I am planning to fix this on the English and German wikipedias in a couple of days, maybe anyone has some thoughts about this? B kimmel 15:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes because some sources list pythons in the family Boidae while other sources give pythons their own family name of Pythonidae. I'm more inclined to go with ITIS and classify them as their own family of Pythonidae, simply because that database usually seems more up to date than EMBL or print sources. Though, using the subfamily name of Pythoninae is not incorrect, but should probably be specified as the subfamily in the text to avoid confusion. Higher up in the taxa sources also disagree on the Infaorders, EMBL says they're Henophidia and ITIS says they're Alethinophidia. I'm of the belief that taxonomy is more art than it is science, and everyone has their own opinion. :) -Dawson 16:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some taxa have changed multiple times in a single year. Itis and EMBL are just slightly different here and there. If Itis is a better scource I will use Itis for the reptiles, and remove links to the EMBL that do not apply. I posted this at wikispecies and wait for some more reply. B kimmel 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think EMBL, though not as current as other sources in places, is still a valuable resource, and shouldn't really have links to it removed. Taxoboxes have allowances for mentioning synonyms, and should be used where applicable. I try to mention taxonomic confusion in an article somewhere if there is something specific to comment on. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to get all sources to agree, and even if you changed every article to refer to ITIS instead of EMBL, next week someone could come along and think EMBL is the better resource and change it all back, and maybe even back up their argument with a third, print source. It is a rock and hard place with no real solution. -Dawson 17:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know there's a lot of confusion, and I've corrected many of my own articles because of taxonomic problems. I think EMBL is the only workable source. ITIS is very incomplete, it is mainly focussed on the North-American species, many European families, genuses etc. are simply 'missing'. Most very common European species like Lacerta viridis don't even seem to exist.

Another example, similar tot this one, is Anomalepidae (EMBL) / Anomalepididae (ITIS). As a solution, maybe the Pythonidae shóuld be renamed to Pythoninae, so at least we are working with a single, maybe not the most accurate, but at least complete classification (EMBL). I will do anything to prevent the impression arises any classification is static. Especially in cases where EMBL and any other major classification do not correspond, like in this case the Pythonidae, but others too. To prevent contradictions in articles but also between different wikipedias, wich is not good for our credability. I believe that no matter how confusing and contradicting classification is, the articles on wikipedia should use the same classification at least as a guideline. B kimmel 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion, per the previous discussion on this page, of merging it into Python (since it is largely duplicate info) and making a new section in that article to discuss the taxonomic confusion. -Dawson 21:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reaction. I agree with merging, it solves most problems and Pythonidae and Python are pretty much the same. Thanks for your feedback! B kimmel 11:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, thank you for doing the work. ;) -Dawson 14:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)