Talk:Vipera ursinii

	Vipera ursinii is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taxonomy[edit]

It is stated that no subspecies are currently recognized. How about Vipera ursinii rakosiensis (Méhely, 1893), Vipera ursinii macrops (Méhely, 1911) and Vipera ursinii moldavica (Nilson, Andrén et Joger, 1988)? In Hungary the EU supports the protection of the V. u. rakosiensis, and the project has an own Research Center, home page, and its members often visit international conferences. I guess that this can be an evidence that at least V. u. rakosiensis exists.--Mathae 13:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the answer to your question is in the Taxonomy section of this article. Indeed, a number of different subspecies are recognized by other authorities, but apparently no one has yet managed to paint a complete picture. That's why McDiarmid (and thus ITIS) has decided to play it safe and treat all of the proposed names as synonyms, rather than subspecies, for the time being.

As for Hungary and the EU, just because a (sub)species is one day mentioned in some legal document doesn't mean that it must be included in every taxonomy from that point on; that would be a case of the tail wagging the dog. However, V. u. rakosiensis is still recognized by a number of other taxonomies... just not by the one I've decided to follow for these articles (McDiarmid/ITIS). --Jwinius 17:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even IUCN recognizes ssp. moldavica and ssp. rakosiensis. I guess in this case not mentioning at least these two - even if the ITIS does so - would be quite awkward.--Mathae 21:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that. However, has it occurred to you that the IUCN may not be following any taxonomy in particular? It's not really their business. They're more interested in the well-being of certain populations of animals than promulgating a taxonomy of their own. We could mention in the Conservation status section that certain subspecies that are mentioned by the IUCN that are listed as critically endangered, but there are already links for them on the IUCN's page for Vipera ursinii. --Jwinius 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you know about the other taxonomies, why do you write "No subspecies are currently recognized." instead of "ITIS doesn't recognize..." or "Many authorities recognize (the subspecies)"? This way it's rather deceiving, in my opinion, even if the other variations are mentioned later in the article.--Mathae 21:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To keep things simple. If I were to begin every article with statements regarding various taxonomies, it would make things needlessly complex and confusing. In addition, I always include a footnote reference regarding ITIS at the end of these statements. It's not that I'm out to deceive anybody by doing it this way, but it seems to me that the same choice is made in many publications of this kind. Of course, when you select one taxonomy over all others, somebody is always bound to be disappointed. This is the reason why I've often included a separate Taxonomy section in many of these articles. --Jwinius 03:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I simply claim that it is deceiving to write such a sentence in one of the first lines - even if you make a footnote and inculde a taxonomy. In my opinion in the introductory part only undebated pieces of information should be mentioned, e. g. the common names, the species' range, that it is venomous. Not to mention that it's not our duty here in Wikipedia to choose from the different scientific opinions and explanations, but to list them all. In the present state of the article it seems that the opinion of ITIS is more accepted than others, which is not true, as you admit it too.

That's why it would be a good solution not to mention the disputed facts in the introduction. Thus it wouldn't be neither confusing and complex, nor decieving. Since it is not an obligation to mention a species' taxonomic status in the introduction, this could be easily solved.--Mathae 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant. I know from a number of professionals that Dr. Roy McDiarmid's taxonomy for reptiles, which ITIS follows exactly, is currently regarded as the most authoritative. Naturally, others are constantly busy with new research, attempting to push the boundaries, hoping that their views will eventually be accepted by experts such as Dr. McDiarmid. For example, the taxonomy in Dr. David Mallow's book, True Vipers (2003), is based on Dr. McDiarmid's taxonomy, which he and his co-authors then expanded with some of their own ideas. The point is that the reptile taxonomy available through ITIS is not controversial -- it is in fact widely accepted. Also, see this discussion of the issue: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#General taxonomy (User:Dfcisneros is a taxonomist).

As for the idea of not selecting any one [taxonomy] and listing them all instead, that would not be a good idea, as there would be too many inconsistencies (the synonyms and their redirects), not to mention direct conflicts. In situations like this, it is best to select one taxonomy, or else we'd be left with nothing more than a jumble of loose articles that say nothing about the interrelationships between the various forms. The (ITIS) taxonomy is central to all of the articles in this section -- it ties it all together. This one, for instance, depends on Vipera, Viperinae and Viperidae. The taxonomy sections in many of these articles are there to explain old and new ideas.

It's for these reasons that I see nothing controversial or deceiving about mentioning something in the introduction regarding the taxonomy used here. Actually, I believe it's important to let readers know something about the big picture; in this case whether or not any subspecies are currently recognized by the world's leading authority. --Jwinius 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any professionals, and I am not one either. That's why I can't know whether ITIS is accepted or not by them, but you seem to be a carefully working and reliable editor. I accept that ITIS and Dr. McDiarmid has a worldwidely accepted taxonomy. Still, I don't agree with using it as an étalon, since there are other worldwidely accepted sources (such as IUCN, whose competence isn't disputed, I think).
"or else we'd be left with nothing more than a jumble of loose articles that say nothing about the interrelationships between the various forms." - Well, the disputed subspecies are already mentioned in the article. I don't understand your problem. The situation wouldn't change if that problematic sentence was left out.
"The (ITIS) taxonomy is central to all of the articles in this section -- it ties it all together." - I guess that's because basically you wrote them, so the situation reflects your choice of ITIS. But Wikipedia in my opinion shouldn't decide if there are several acceptable versions of one thing. In this case the subspecies are mentioned in several reliable sources, not written by marginal authors and works. I don't have a problem with ITIS, only with placing it on a first place under the certain circumstances.--Mathae 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN is not a source of taxonomy: they only mention names when people try to get an organism listed as vulnerable or endangered or whatever. Also, I think it's easier to get something listed by the IUCN if it has a name; I wouldn't be surprised if some of the arguments you used here were used with the IUCN in order to get those subspecies of V. ursinii listed. You can be sure that Dr. McDiarmid has seen those arguments as well, but apparently he didn't find them as convincing.

Taxonomy is a confusing, that's for sure. When I started writing this stuff, I know I found it confusing! On the highest level, it's supposed to reflect our current understanding of how species are interrelated, but on this level (writing for Wikipedia) it's also about organizing the articles in an efficient and logical manner. For example, have you noticed the lists of synonyms in these articles? There's redirects for all of them with only one or two disambiguation pages. When combined with redirects (and more disambig's) for all the known common names, that means we don't have to worry about duplicates, while the readers (and other authors) will always link to the correct articles. Taxonomy may not mean that much to someone intent on writing only a single article, but if you want to describe a complete (sub)family (let alone the whole tree of life), it's terribly important. What I like about McDiarmid's taxonomy is that it's comprehensive and consistent. It may be conservative, but cutting edge isn't what we want here anyway -- otherwise we'd be reorganizing things every time somebody decided to publish a new checklist. :-) --Jwinius 18:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

I´ve added a picture to fill the empty taxobox. This specimen would be called "macrops", if you follow "traditional" taxonomy. I know its not the best quality, but still a begin.--Zwentibold aka Edmund_Sackbauer--62.47.156.13 20:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly: that's an excellent picture! And you've included the subspecific name and location as well, which I expect will come in hand in the future -- very good as well. Thanks very much for your contribution. --Jwinius 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]