Talk:Northern green anaconda

Article picture?

Snake yawn!

The article used to have File:Anaconda (Eunectes akayima).jpg (right) as an illustration added by @Haplochromis, which was later removed by @UtherSRG as being of the wrong species (as the title might seem to indicate). However, the newly discovered species E. akayima is a split from E. murinus, rather than the discovery of an entirely new population. The pictured snake, found in Northern Venezuela, is squarely in the range of E. akayima rather than (post-split) E. murinus.
As the pre-split name E. murinus encompasses both currently defined species, it shouldn't be surprising that an E. akayima would have been labeled this way at the time, and the range is more consistent with it belonging to that species. Should it be added back as an illustration, or would jumping from "E. murinus in northern South America" to "E. akayima" constitute original research? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If added back, it should be removed from the E. murinus article as no longer belonging to that species. Also, if added back, the file's description should be updated to indicate why the file's name is misleading. As for whether or not to add it back in, I think the OR/not-OR dividing line is fairly thin here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already removed it from the E. murinus article given the reasonable doubt induced by the split. I see Haplochromis already edited the file's description on Commons, so it should be good to add back. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Well that's ok then! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 20:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Will Smith took part in the expedition that discovered the northern green anaconda? Source: Fry, Bryan G. (2024-02-19). "Scientists shocked to discover new species of green anaconda, the world's biggest snake". Retrieved 2024-02-29.
  • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Chaotic Enby (talk). Self-nominated at 22:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Northern green anaconda; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Chaotic Enby: Just barely 5xed. Hook is interesting. Well sourced; Earwig returns fine. QPQ exempt; please specify this in the future. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 21:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Northern green anaconda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geardona (talk · contribs) 04:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Notes

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Seems to have a little bit of science-y talk, but not too technical	Pass
(b) (MoS)	See prior, no glaring issues, needs a few more wiki-links maybe, but not fail-able over something as small as that.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Did a quick spot check, seems good	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	No problems I can see, although the one maybe reference is used in a appropriate way.	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research detected	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Earwigs not detecting anything	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Despite being a little recent, covers major aspects.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Yes, no problems I can see	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Its an article about a snake, how can it have an opinion? its fine.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Good job! Nothing I really can think of saying here.

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eunectes akayima is not a valid species!

Recently, two rebuttals to the work of Rivas et al. (2024) were published, in which the authors provided evidence that Eunectes akayima is not a valid species. This page should be removed or re-structured completely. The only Green Anaconda species currently recognized is Eunectes murinus.

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.1

https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.2 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:34A2:1D35:E77F:9E1B (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions! I don't think a controversial status should be a reason for removing the page entirely, but it would be a good thing to add these works to the page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 02:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

In the Spanish page a detailed text explaining why this species is now considered invalid was added, in case you want to include it:

Recently, two articles have been published criticizing the description of this particular species. In the first one, the authors discuss the difficulty in accurately determining the provenance of the type material of the species described by Linnaeus and its implications when describing a new species. This is because the only known specimen of the type series of Eunectes murinus was part of the curiosity cabinet of King Adolf Frederick of Sweden, which could have been acquired through naturalia merchants, thereby increasing uncertainty about the material's provenance. The suspicion of Suriname as a possible type locality is based on a well-documented idea in the literature that many of the specimens Linnaeus described in his Systema Naturae came from there. This could be true, although valid only for material that can be linked to Linnaeus's "South American emissaries", such as Pehr Löfling or Daniel Rolander, which is not the case. However, the purported new species, Eunectes akayima, as mentioned by its authors, could also be found in Suriname, making it impossible to determine which of the two evolutionary lineages the green anaconda described by Linnaeus over 250 years ago belongs to and which corresponds to the new species. On the other hand, the authors of the new species violate several articles of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, thus compromising the integrity of their description, regardless of their evidence. For example, the authors confuse the terms validity and availability, making the name Boa gigas [= Eunectes gigas], proposed by Latreille in 1801 for a species with a distribution similar to that of the purported new species, unavailable without any valid reason, which would have priority over Eunectes akayima. Because of this, the name Eunectes akayima was synonymized with Eunectes murinus. The second article, on the other hand, considers the name Eunectes akayima as a nomen nudum, so unlike the previous one where it is considered available but invalid, here it is considered unavailable. The difference between both critiques lies in the interpretation of what the authors consider a diagnostic attribute, so that for the former, the justification for the use of the species' evolutionary history and distribution satisfies the availability criterion of the Nomenclature Code, while for the latter, it does not. In both cases, the authors of the respective critiques consider that the description of this new species does not meet the requirements of zoological nomenclature and therefore do not recognize it as valid. 2800:E2:B27F:FD28:4D91:592D:7751:D31C (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Read new article on the matter:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382340282_Description_of_the_Northern_Green_Anaconda_Eunectes_akayima_sp_nov_What_is_in_a_name Anaconda@prodigy.net (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggest Deletion

This should be deleted the recent description has been shown to be a mess, as stated above the name is nomen nudem, its also not a senior synonym for the taxon in anycase. If the northern form is a species it will be Eunectes murinas with the southern form being the new taxon, though it has several pre-existing names also. There is no scenario where this name will be seen as valid, the Lectotype for Boa murina set by Dubois et al is from Spanish West Indies, ie Trinidad and hence represents the northern form and the oldest name for a Green Anaconda of any form. This is a case of jumping to make a page about a new species before the dust has settled. I strongly recommend delete and wait and see what happens in next few months as there is more work on this in production. Its not ready for a page yet and is presenting false information. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a move to draft space as Draft:Northern green anaconda would be most appropriate. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the taxonomy is a mess doesn't prevent us from writing an article about it explaining the situation and the controversy about it. Saying that "the southern form will be the new taxon" is WP:CRYSTAL, as for now E. akayima is the taxon that has been published. While the species itself is controversial (which is repeatedly mentioned in the article), it has received enough coverage to be independently notable, and Wikipedia shouldn't wait until "the dust has settled" (in some cases, never) to make articles about ongoing scientific controversies. As you can read throughout, the article is not taking a side, and repeatedly refers to it as an "alleged" or "proposed" species. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually whether or not the species is controversial is not the issue, its the name that is the problem. It has now been demonstrated to be nomen nudem ie not available by Dubois et al. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 13:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is only titled "Northern green anaconda", not "Eunectes akayima", and it is mentioned in the article (notably, in #Nomenclatural availability and validity) that the name is controversial. We report the results of Dubois et al. as well as the results of the other studies concerning the species, without asserting that one study in particular is correct.
In any case, I don't think deletion is an appropriate solution, given that the studies and reporting on them make the northern green anaconda notable whether it is actually the species' correct name or not. Having an article discussing the controversy over the species' name and validity is much preferable to having no article, and which name to use in the taxobox is a completely separate question from deletion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that the specimen now set as Lectotype for Boa murina by Dubois et al is according to the original Dutch version of Seba from the Spanish West Indies, which means it is from Trinidad (ie thats the type locality for Eunectes murinas. Making the so called Southern Green Anaconda actually the northern one. I agree with discussing the issue but it may have been better to include this in the current page for now rather than making a new one which will ulimately have to be merged as both articles are referring to the same population, whether or not you consider them species. This is the problem the Northern Green Anaconda is Eunectes murinas not the southern one. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not really that clear-cut. Dubois et al. made a choice for the lectotype, different from the previous choice made by Rivas et al., and, waiting for consensus, we don't have to say that one is more accurate than the other. Ultimately, I don't see the point of a merge: there is no reason for the article green anaconda to be about whichever species ultimately ends up called E. murinus (that's just semantics, really, and doesn't change what the underlying populations are) and we do need several articles given that this northern population is notable in its own right.
A compromise I'd be happy with would be to have green anaconda discuss the green anacondas in general (both species/populations), with this page being about the proposed northern species (variously called either E. akayima, E. murinus or something else, depending on the author). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

umm Rivas et als lectotype is invalid under the code, it was collected in 2011 and hence could not have been examined by Linneaus. To be a lectotype a specimen must be part of the original type series (syntypes) examined by the author, ie Linneaus. How did Linneaus examine a snake collected in 2011? Dubois lectotype is part of the original series and has been declared and must be accepted as the valid Lectotype as per the ICZN code. I am fine with rearranging the discussion to be part of the article on Green Anaconda. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We could (and should) have the section about the lectotype be on the green anaconda article, although it is good to also have it here to provide context in terms of nomenclature. However, saying that this specific syntype "must" be accepted is WP:OR, we have to follow scientific consensus (and see the reactions in the community) rather than follow a single author. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its not OR it is the rules of the ICZN Code once a Lectotype is validly declared it must be followed. When it comes to nomenclature we are bound to this like any publisher. Rivas et al Lectototype has been invalidated by two publications so far. The one set by Dubois is the valid one and has to be followed or do you not believe WP is bound to the ICZN Code for zoological nomenclature? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 16:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yet, I would subscribe that the Wikipedia article is taking a side. The challenges to the new species are strictly opinions of editors of journals. They do not present any data supporting their opinion and their publications were not checked independently by impartial scientists. Considering that the article supporting the two species has substantial data support, "not taking sides" amounts to taking the side of those that just present opinion without data. Anaconda@prodigy.net (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it would be wise to turn this into an 'official' deletion request and alert WP:REPTILES? As for the article presenting false information, it seems like the article treats the species with neutrality, without really taking a side on its validity. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The point about the lectotype designation throws things into a bit of a mess. Based on the paper by Dubois et al., it would appear that the northern population is the one from which the lectotype was taken, in which case both gigas and akayima would be junior names to murinus. One thing that is not subject to dispute, as noted in the previous comments in this thread, and also by Dubois et al., is that the lectotype designation by Rivas et al. for murinus is literally impossible under the ICZN, and absolutely not a valid designation. That's not just a matter of opinion, but objective fact (Linnaeus very definitely never saw the specimen used by Rivas), and that fact has been published by Dubois et al., and can be cited as such. The only thing that is even marginally unclear at this point is whether the lectotype designation published by Dubois et al. is valid under the Code. In other words, there are only two issues not resolved already, and for which it will take time for things to become clear: (1) are there two taxa? The molecular evidence is not a slam dunk, but it's probable that it will hold up to scrutiny. (2) If there are two taxa, which one is murinus, and what is the correct name for the other one? At this stage of things, it pretty much looks like Dubois has settled the matter by using a northern specimen as the lectotype, which may very well mean that the southern taxon has no name at all at this point, unless one of the present synonyms is based on southern material. In a sense, it's less of a controversy than it would appear, but the details do need to be explained to readers, and the uncertainties delineated. Dyanega (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I agree that the Rivas et al. lectotype is pretty much not valid at this point. In this case, while it's mostly clear that there are two species, the main issue is that there hasn't been a formal description of the southern species. Until a valid description is made, it's better to mostly keep things as they are, with this article being edited to present more clearly the opinion of Dubois et al. in naming the northern species E. murinus (which ultimately is a matter of semantics and doesn't change the existence of underlying species), and having the article green anaconda about, well, the green anacondas (i.e. both species). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Faendalimas I vote to not delete. I skimmed through the page and it looks like it does a great job at explaining its status as an invalid species, and nowhere is false information suggested. I think the size of the content itself makes it eligible to remain undeleted. Both invalid or obsolete taxa and lower taxa such as subspecies or varieties can be notable enough to retain their own page, it all depends on the amount of literature that exists for it. As a last resort I would suggest merging, but I think the amount of information already present would make it difficult to merge. A shorter summary should absolutely be present in the older synonym's page, though. —Snoteleks (Talk) 06:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I vote not delete, because the page very clear both in the lede and throughout the article about how the status of the Northern green anaconda is disputed. starsandwhales (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A new article by the authors Validly describes the species and provides morphological differences that confirms the validity of the new species. So both the name E. akayima and the validity of the new species have been supported by new references. Here is the link for that paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382340282_Description_of_the_Northern_Green_Anaconda_Eunectes_akayima_sp_nov_What_is_in_a_name

Also important to notice that the article by Dubois et al, and the one by Kock are editorial statements that were written by the editors of the journals where they appeared and did not undergo independent peer review. They cannot be treated as real scientific papers that are reviwed by accuracy by a group of independent reviewers. That happened in both articles fo Rivas et al. but not on Dubois et al and Kock letters Anaconda@prodigy.net (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Size information

I did not find a size description in the article by Rivas et al. The Wikipedia article refers to "confirmed specimens measuring up to 6.3 metres (21 ft) long", apparently sourced by this article in The Independent that quotes Bryan Fry of the University of Queensland, who is a coauthor of the Rivas paper. The quote refers to only one specimen, not "specimens". But more importantly, it bothers me that this information seems to be from a verbal remark reported in a newspaper rather than from the published scientific paper. We shouldn't be getting such information from comments quoted in newspaper articles, and no description was provided about how rigorously this measurement was established. Is there any other published size information available? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The new scientific paper by Rivas et al. reports this specimen as well as specimen of E. murinus measuring 6.32 cm. Anaconda@prodigy.net (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest paper just out, synonymizing akayima with murinus - next steps?

The latest paper was published just today, I see, and goes very thoroughly over the earlier works by Rivas et al., as well as Dubois et al., and points out a long list of errors in these works, including several incorrect designations of type specimens. See here. The authors located the "lost" type of murinus, and it is from Trinidad, therefore a northern green anaconda, making akayima a junior synonym of murinus and not a valid name. If there is in fact a southern green anaconda, it probably already has a name. This paper was very definitely peer-reviewed, but it sounds like Anaconda@prodigy.net will probably dispute its conclusions anyway (which seems like a possible COI violation, if they are one of the Rivas et al. coauthors; hard to tell with anonymous editors).

Given the evidence (namely, the existence of a type specimen) - an objective fact, not an opinion - there is no longer any dispute over the name of the northern species, while still leaving open the possibility that there is another, southern species. The point is that we know now for certain that the name akayima cannot be applied to any of them, since that name refers to the northern green anaconda, which is murinus (and murinus is not the southern green anaconda, unless there is no separate southern green anaconda at all; i.e., that there is only one species of green anaconda). Accordingly, the earlier call for deletion of this article is warranted, and should realistically be the next step. Some of the existing content should be merged into the Green anaconda article, but since the "Green anaconda" and the "Northern green anaconda" are now defined as the same species, it does not make sense to keep these as two separate articles. There shouldn't be an article for the southern green anaconda until someone (a) proves that such an entity exists, and (b) determines which name applies to it. Under the circumstances, is it more accurate to call for a merge of this article into Green anaconda, or a new call for a deletion? Dyanega (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree to a merge, there is some useful information in this page that should go to the main Anaconda page. Everything else is premature at this point. The Southern form needs to be analysed for its nomenclature and to see if it is actually a species. Everything can be covered in the main page for now. In saying this I acknowoledge potential COI as a co-author of the Wuster et al 2024 paper referred to above. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We've already gone over this before when the previous paper was released, in a discussion above. One new paper isn't a definitive answer, even if we call their opinion on the location of the type specimen an "objective fact". We do not need to call for deletion each time a new paper is released, especially since the article already describes the status as a disputed (and likely invalid) species and the issues with the nomenclature.
"Eunectes akayima" is likely not a valid species (although still debated, with a new paper from Rivas et al. having recently been published), but meets WP:GNG from a history of science standpoint, as do many other now-invalid species. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The type locality is the important point, not so much the type specimen. E. akayima and E. marinus refer to the same taxon, wether a species, subspecies or just a population. The correct name for the Northern Green Anaconda, if you wish to keep it as a species, is E. marinus. E. akayima is a junior synonym. That will not change now. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I really don't think we should keep articles about junior synonyms (if that turns out to be the case here) just because they're "notable", that's quite a slippery slope. I wonder if we have a guideline for that? FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

It meets WP:GNG, and, if the article is clearly written, not from a biological standpoint, but from a history of science one, to focus on the debate about the validity of the naming and the split between populations, it should work.
In other words, making it clear that it is not an article about the anacondas themselves, but about the proposed taxon, which meets GNG with five publications having been written about it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, it's only "notable" as part of the taxonomic history of its senior synonym, which is where it should be covered. This idea goes against established consensus and would need a wider discussion and new consensus before we ever go that route. FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk anything pertinent in this article could be summarised in a taxonomy section in the main article. Sticking to the name original descriptions and the responses to it, there are 2 papers by Rivas et al, 2 by Dubois et al and the Wuster et al and one other to date. Reptile Database also has it as a junior synonym [1]. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Enby, I'm not sure you're seeing the main point here: the dispute that has been settled, definitively, is whether the name murinus applies to the northern populations or the southern populations. Rivas et al. claimed that it belonged to the southern populations, so they thought the northern ones needed a new name - so they proposed akayima. It turns out that they were wrong, and the northern populations are actually murinus, because the type specimen of murinus is northern, making akayima a junior synonym; that dispute is over, and its history can be easily summarized and included in the Green anaconda article. The only remaining dispute is whether the southern populations are a second species. Dyanega (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

We now have three essentially independent studies that show how "E. akayima" cannot be used for any northern green anaconda, as a distinct species or otherwise: Vasquez-Restrepo et al, Dubois et al, and Wuster et al. (all 2024). It is unfortunate that this article has been pushed so quickly to GA status, as it should be very clearly rolled into the main Green anaconda page. All the history and other details can be moved into their respective sections and no information needs to be lost, but having a separate page for a different name of the same taxon goes against all article guidelines of the relevant wikiprojects. I agree with Dyanega, FunkMonk and Scott Thomson. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I know, I see the main point, which I already acknowledged. The dispute has been settled, but is still of historical notability. Wikipedia:Notability is not temporary, and the name (now accepted to be a synonym) still means WP:GNG. I am not saying we should have another page duplicating information about the anacondas themselves under another name, obviously, but one that could detail the nomenclatural history of the purported "species" E. akayima, which we now know to be a junior synonym. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

This could still be included in the main article on the Green Anaconda similar issues have happened before for example Myuchelys which has a section on taxonomic history. It is better to keep all the information on a single species together. I mean how would you propose to link this so its not an orphan page. Many hundreds of species have similar issues in their convoluted nomenclatural histories, this one is only in the present mind because its just happened and is a famous species. I still recommend to merge.

An aside, as I said above I am an author involved here I will not edit, Jesus Rivas has contacted us and accepts our proposals, so this is highly professional of him which is important. Second the statement by Wolfgang Bohme is also innacurate and he asked me to see if it can be removed. It was his answer to an interview question, he was asked could the anacondoa be more than one species, he sais it would not surprise him, but this was before he saw the paper. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, when you say that Jesus Rivas contacted you, does that mean he was the one to ask you to deal with the Wikipedia page thing? If that is the case, the details of how it was done should definitely be disclosed as a COI. (See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for the details, and possibly Wikipedia:Paid editing) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

No Rivas just commented on our paper privately to our lead author, he did not mention the WP page I do not know if he has seen it. The one who directly asked me was Wolfgang Bohme who would like his comment removed if possible as it is out of context. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added merge tags to the relevant pages. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• With this moving to a merge I would like to say I am in support of a merging. I expect the best result would be moving the History and Nomenclature sections into Taxonomy, and the remaining information into their respective sections on Green anaconda. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

  thanks, yes I felt that merge would be easier to deal with than just delete. There is some useful and good information in the article that will improve the main article. As I have already said I need to stay out of any mainspace editing here, I added the tags that will be it, due to my involvement as an author in the most recent paper. However, I am happy to answer questions for editors and provide additional resources if anyone needs it. This is a highly notable species because of its size, the movies etc. Its a page we should get right. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, merge makes more sense than delete, because its names need to be redirects in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Support for the merge. I can help editing the portion dealing with the nomenclature, insofar as it intersects ICZN rules (which do play pretty heavily in this particular case). I have no personal stake in this, other than making sure the summary doesn't misrepresent how the ICZN regulations apply here. Dyanega (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)