Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Renaming Embryophytes to Embryophyta

Main page

Talk

Article template

Taxonomic resources

Taxoboxes

Participants

Article requests

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Tree of Life and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:TOLWT:TOL WT:TREEWT:TREE WT:TREEOFLIFEWT:TREEOFLIFE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66Auto-archiving period: 45 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Tree of Life This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at The Signpost on 26 December 2011 and 27 December 2019.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

As many of you know, iNaturalist uses Wikipedia articles as its main source to populate the "About" tab on its pages about taxa. When no Wikipedia page exists, the "About" tab gives a link to create the page on Wikipedia and generates a template with a speciesbox, section headings, and reflist. At present, this template includes one reference, to iNaturalist itself. Unfortunately, as user-generated content, iNaturalist does not constitute a reliable source from our perspective.

I am thinking of filing two bug reports in the iNaturalist Github system:

1. Remove the part of the template that creates a reference to iNaturalist. Stubs created via the iNaturalist template, without further additions, will then easily be recognized as unsourced and shunted to draftspace via WP:NPP.
2. Add a taxonbar to the template, so the new stub will have links to many possible sources, making it easier to rescue. (I'm splitting this into a separate bug because the development team there is probably stretched pretty thin, and I'm not sure how easy it is to pull up the corresponding Wikidata identifier for a given iNat taxon.)

I'd be interested in input from users here about these proposed changes, particularly from anyone who is making use of the iNaturalist template to start articles. Choess (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. But it took me a couple of years to get iNaturalist to remove |parent= from the Speciesbox in their template (parent is only used to display ranks between genus and species, which is pretty rare). Admittedly, I brought that up on their forum, not Github; maybe Github responses are faster.

Wikidata is what really drives the iNaturalist links to Wikipedia, so I don't think a taxonbar would be too hard to pull up. iNaturalist users (at least some of them) know they may need to edit Wikidata to ensure the right article is linked (I think there is some capability for iNat to find a Wikipedia article via title matching before a Wikidata link is made, but it can be the wrong article if there is a hemi-homonym, and Wikidata must then be edited to get the right article linked).

I doubt anybody who uses the iNat template to create articles is watching this talk page (or any others in Wikipedia space). Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The turning point on your issue seems to have been a third party (richardlitt) making a patch and pull request; once that existed, one of the staff developers was able to help refine it and get it committed. I don't speak Ruby; I think I could figure out how to do that for removing the reference to iNaturalist, but adding the taxonbar to the template is probably beyond me. (The relevant file is here.)

I agree that most of the people using this feature probably aren't en.wikipedia power users, but I know we do have some article creators that I think may have come here via iNat over the past several years, and I don't know if this represents the start of anyone's workflow. From dabbling around in the New Articles reports and in draftspace, I don't think this is generating stubs at a rate that would cause serious problems for WP:NPP, but I'm trying to be vigilant about any mechanism that might fill us with one-line stubs and undermine community support for WP:NSPECIES. Choess (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I try to monitor all the new taxon articles on a daily basis (via reports such as User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult). I would say that the majority of new articles are produced by a handful of editors that usually produce multiple articles a day (and these editors produce articles with no problems). There's another group of editors that produce maybe an article a week whose names I recognize, and for most of them I have a sense of whether they produce articles with zero problems, sometimes produce articles with problems (e.g. forgetting to include a category), or consistently produce articles with problems (there are two editors who contribute articles where I know there is always going to be some cleanup needed). I'd guess between 80 and 90% of new articles are made by editors whose names I recognize. For the articles by editors I don't recognize, a significant number of those (20% at a guess) are produced via the iNat template. It absolutely is the start of a workflow for some inexperienced editors, even if it's only a couple percent of all articles. Plantdrew (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support this, iNaturalist citations are an issue I've come across a few times before and it is very unfortunate that the iNat team encourages their use. I actually got interested in editing Wikipedia because I noticed the empty "about" sections for taxa on iNaturalist, and I think the template on iNat is a great way to introduce people to editing Wikipedia, but that circular citation has always annoyed me. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about cyanobacterial taxonomy. Please further discuss it: Talk:Cyanobacteria#"Cyanobacteria-Melainabacteria group"? Jako96 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've discovered a collection of redirects that ought to not exist. The user, Galactikapedia, has since figured out that species pages should not redirect back into existing pages (ostensibly to remove redlinks) but their mark still remains. User Xplicit has begun the work of removing them, but understandably cannot continue doing so alone. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this is not an exhaustive list; many older redirects of theirs were not tagged by bots and are not represented on the list, such as the redirects on Euryleptidae. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for calling attention to this - just to clarify, are you wanting to see these redirects deleted outright, or expanded into articles? If your goal is to delete them, you can nominate all of them for deletion as a group at WP:RFD. While I would love to just expand all of the valid taxa into articles myself, I don't think it's a realistic goal given the large number of redirects and the amount of time it would take. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have encountered this user before and had their redirects successfully deleted at RfD in the past without controversy. Cremastra (u — c) 20:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Microcaldus and Fidelibacter pages, Microcaldota and Fidelibacterota's authorities can't be displayed because there is not enough parameters for speciesboxes. This needs to be fixed somehow. Jako96 (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, monotypic taxa so far up the hierarchy. So there would need to be provision for |greatgreatgreatgrandparent_authority=. Not a priority, but fixable if others think it worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A little surprising, right? Let's wait for others. And it is worthwhile, there is no other way around. Jako96 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is worthwhile. This is probably not the only time it will happen (Picozoa comes to mind). — Snoteleks (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so there are monotypic class, order and family in Picozoa but they are not displayed because of this issue? Jako96 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the taxon is set to Picozoa and templates don' exist for other taxa. This could be changed by setting taxon to Picomonas and creating necessary templates.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that, actually. Thanks. Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jts, so do you think it's worthwhile? Jako96 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed automatic taxobox with a speciesbox in Picozoa page. Jako96 (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles about extinct taxa seem to overwhelmingly use present tense in the intros, as in "X is an extinct species" etc., but this is often drive-by changed to "was", though any extinct taxon is of course still a taxon. But since this isn't written down anywhere, I thought it would make sense to get a consensus for this so we can write a guideline somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an extinct species in the present tense. Was an extinct species would imply that descriptor is not still current, no? As if they stopped being extinct, or a species? I see why people have an instinct to use past tense, and agree this should have a guideline, but it seems like a clear cut decision. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clear cut to us, yes, but not to most "laypeople", that's why it's good to have a policy to point to when we revert them, or better yet (but less likely), people will see it and just don't do it to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this boils down to two distinct ways of thinking about extinct taxa: either as taxonomic entities or the actual organisms. When talking about the genus Allosaurus, it has to be used in the present tense. Constructions like "Allosaurus was an extinct genus of theropod dinosaur" make no sense, as the genus is currently classified as a theropod dinosaur. However, if the (drive-by)editor considers the organisms and not the taxonomic entities we've assigned them to, they are inclined to refer to Allosaurus in the past tense because the animal no longer exists.

I hope this makes sense. Generally I am of the same opinion as LittleLazyLass that referring to extinct taxa in the present tense works best, and this is a clear cut decision. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. X is an extinct species is correct as the recognised species is a concept that is currently accepted. The animals/plants themselves should be referred to in the past tense. The X were marine organisms, that were found in the Zian Sea. Any time travelling taxonomist passing by would have considered them an extant species at the time.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a larger problem about taxa articles: are we discussing the taxonomic entity or the organisms? This affects whether the article is written in the singular or the plural, and in practice writers usually switch back and forth when they feel like it:

The waxy crab is a species of crab ... waxy crabs are found off the coasts of Denmark and Sweden ... the waxy crab is a solitary animal ... a flurry of research in the 1990s into waxy crabs' behaviour has shown ... the waxy crab is considered a delicassy in Germany ... and so on. Cremastra (u — c) 15:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with The Morrison Man and Jts1882. In taxonomic entity contexts, use present tense. Most articles mention a taxonomic rank in the first sentence, so that's a taxonomic entity context. In organism contexts past tense is appropriate. Using present tense to describe the range of an extinct organism sounds pretty strange. Plantdrew (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but note I'm asking specifically about the first sentence in the intro (could have made that clearer), as these are very often drive-by changed to "was" in such articles. It has no bearing on the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That should be 'is'. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the List of examples of convergent evolution page, i've realized that the page would likely be better if it was re-sectioned; My idea was to base the sections around MRCAs but after some discussion it was brought up that basing the sections off of general anatomy and physiology might be an equally valid way of classification. Any other opinions? Anthropophoca (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of sectioning on the trait (or purpose) being converged upon feels like it would make much more sense for the topic. Covering similarities in the evolution of the eye for example, is hard to map to common ancestry. CMD (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, definitely a re-sectioning based on the traits themselves would be much more appropriate. The current sectioning does not allow for coevolution across larger taxa. We could do something like this, divided into the traditional kingdoms of life:

• In animals
  • Nervous system (which I can see is lacking)
  • Notochord and stomochord
  • Flight (wings, gliders)
  • Limbs (webbed feet, claws, etc.)
  • Facial structure (snouts, beaks)
  • Blood cells
  • Color vision
  • Nutrition (omnivory niches, filter feeding in whales)
  • Metabolic water
  • Habitat convergence (freshwater dolphins, etc.)
  • etc.
• In plants
  • Tree-type development (only briefly mentioned as trunk)
  • Nutrient transport, root systems, pollination types, fruits (all essential subsections that should be separate)
  • Leaves
  • Toxins
  • Annual life cycles
  • Carnivory (only mentioned briefly even though this is one of the most famous cases of convergence; would include pitcher traps and digestive enzymes)
  • Cactus-like modifications
  • Carbon concentration mechanisms (CAM, C4...)
  • Palms
  • etc.
• In other eukaryotes/organisms (some mentions could include prokaryotes)
  • Fungus-like development (would include slime molds and in general hyphae-forming organisms)
  • Amoeboid cells
  • Tests (as in testate amoebae)
  • Axopodia (as in heliozoa)
  • etc.

I do think the marsupial-placentarian convergences are enough to warrant their own subsection within animals. Also, there are many uncited and vague statements such as the gastrotrich-kinorhynch mention. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps it would be best to organize the subsections in alphabetical order. — Snoteleks (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also in plants - parasitism (Aneura mirabilis, Parasitaxus usta, multiple angiosperm taxa); also in red algae

Inquiline social parasites in Hymenoptera. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of why i thought that sorting by MRCAs would be helpful. Perhaps a "two-layer" sorting would be best? Anthropophoca (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should only add more taxon-based sections only if there's enough content for a given taxon. For example, there's almost nothing for true fungi, but there's a lot for tetrapods alone. — Snoteleks (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "taxon-based section" i do mean the MRCA thing; an example would be like

==Among vertebrates==

• Slit pupils have independently appeared in sharks, frogs, squamates, cats, and skimmers

==Among tetrapods==

• Webbed toes independently evolved in modern amphibians, crocodiles, many species of birds, water opposum, otters, and beavers
• Filamentous integument evolved independently in ornithodirans and mammals; these clades use different types of keratin to build their feathers and hairs, respectively.
  • The "hairs" on Trichobatrachus robustus are not keratinized and act as an accessory breathing organ

Obviously this is nowhere near a complete list of examples, but i hope my intent can be gleaned from it Anthropophoca (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like it but I find it hard to imagine how to do a two-layer sectioning in a way that feels natural/intuitive. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So recently, I added a bunch of more phyla to the Life on Earth template. I also added some non-phylum taxa that was "important", because there was already some. For example, there was already taxa such as CRuMs or Apusomonadida. My question is, should we remove all non-phylum (or division) taxa? Or should we keep them? Jako96 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this template is the weakness of the sources for some of the entries, particularly the use of journal articles, rather than secondary sources. To take just one example, consider the article CRuMs. The article treats AlgaeBase's Kingdom Crumalia as a synonym. If we followed WP:SCHOLARSHIP in preferring secondary sources, the article would be at "Crumalia". In following journal articles, there's also the danger of ignoring WP:NOTNEWS. We need to be sure that taxa proposed on the basis of phylogenetic studies in one or more journal articles will be taken up more widely. Ideally, I think the template should contain only taxa that have demonstrated support in secondary sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template should only contain largest taxa that is not a genus or infrageneric taxon, contains genera more than one and doesn't contain any real phyla (and doesn't belong to any real phyla), I did it like that. Jako96 (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also should we add MGE phyla to this template? Jako96 (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's remove TSAR from the automated taxobox system. TSAR isn't universally accepted. It's also not used in taxoboxes of pages like Eukaryote, Protist or Diaphoretickes for this reason. Jako96 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time in a year and the fourth overall, there is a move discussion going at Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign) that would effect the naming of Gamergate (ant), comments welcome.--Kevmin § 20:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose renaming Embryophytes to Embryophyta. It's much more used. Jako96 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search shows that this is not the case, with 25.500 results for "Embryophytes" and 18.500 for "Embryophyta". The Morrison Man (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar favors Embryophyta. And also Google finds the word "embryophytes" too. Jako96 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we are gonna stick with Embryophytes, let's abandon Embryophyta and only use Embryophytes for consistency. Jako96 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your inflexibility over names doesn't make any sense. Nobody wants to entirely replace the common name with the scientific name or viceversa in the main article texts. Unless you want to talk specifically about taxonomy templates (in which case the Wikipedia consensus is already established), this discussion is pointless — Snoteleks (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I want to entirely replace common names with scientific names. I thought Embryophytes was a synonym. Jako96 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, "Embryophytes" is the common or vernacular name, not a synonym. Remember when you deleted the 'corticates' synonym from the Diaphoretickes taxobox, this is (or should be) the same case. Have you seen anywhere that 'Embryophytes' has a different date and authority than 'Embryophyta'? If so, we should fix it; it might be a rare case of an editor mistaking the common name for a scientific one, which understandably would be confusing for you and anyone else. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see such a case. For example, technically Cyclostomi and Cyclostomata are not proposed by Duméril. But the names are commonly attributed to him. Or Patterson didn't propose Stramenopiles but Adl et al. publications state the authority as "Patterson 1989 emend. Adl et al. 2005". So I thought the synonym "Embryophytes" was attributed to Engler but not actually proposed by him. Jako96 (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Regarding Stramenopiles, the 'emend' is the reason why. Patterson proposed the synapomorphy-based adjective 'stramenopile' and the Adl et al. team turned it into a formal taxon as 'Stramenopiles', which unequivocally corresponds to the original meaning, unlike Heterokonta and others (probably why it remained the scientific consensus while Heterokonta did not). I don't know anything about cyclostome taxonomy, so I apologize but I cannot help there (but the confusion may just be due to neglect from Wikipedia editors that may have wrongly assigned to Duméril the authority; again I have no idea). — Snoteleks (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jako96 Okay I see what you mean now. The taxobox at Embryophyte says Embryophytes instead of Embryophyta, even though according to the source material Engler wrote Embryophyta and not Embryophytes. I made a suggestion for a change at Template talk:Taxonomy/Embryophytes/Plantae. — Snoteleks (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Jako96 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar searches are best for scientific information, vanilla Google is better for information like most used common names. The Wikipedia policy is for the most commonly used name in the English language, not the the most commonly used name by scientists.

It would be better if article titles used the taxon names except when the name is really widely known among the general public, but Wikipedia policy is clear, even if some projects ignore it.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For another page that could use some TLC; Appendage is another case of an early general-biological article (est. 2005) that grew somewhat aimlessly through two decades of editing. Anthropophoca (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose changing Cyclostomi to Cyclostomata. Google Scholar shows 10.500 results for Cyclostomata and 1.220 results for Cyclostomi. Jako96 (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So today i learned (after an embarassingly long time) that we have two pages about rays that overlap heavily in scope: Myliobatiformes and Myliobatoidei . I hadn't found the latter prior because i navigate wiki through pages and taxonomic names, so of course Myliobatoidei (on the namespace "Stingray")^[a] remained off my radar.

The order page is just a family list and a cladogram, so i feel like it would quickly gain unanimous support for merging into the Stingray page, but i've not delved into Batoid systematics too deeply^[b] so i'm hesitant to just implement it then and there,^[c] which is why i decided to ask everyone on here on the matter. Should the two pages be merged?

Anthropophoca (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If zanobatids could be accepted as true stingrays, then maybe. If not, then no I think. Jako96 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that they seem to have never developed a stinger, and they may not even be close to stingrays. Anthropophoca (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Harpacochampsa#Incorrect etymology that might benefit from additional eyeballs. It seems to be devolving into rehashing arguments stated previously, has some behavioral aspects to it that probably belong at User talk and not article talk, and has other aspects that while relevant to the article are not specific to it but could be relevant at any species article. (To the latter point, those aspects might be better debated here than there, but the conversation is already lengthy and perhaps not worth moving here at this point.) Not sure how to untangle this, perhaps splitting it into three discussions, but something needs to be done; maybe someone here will have a fresh approach. Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is rooted in etymological discussion; one of the involved parties insists on not translating scientific names if their meanings have never been specified in the original descriptions.

Thank god for ETYFish. Anthropophoca (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a general preference for whether the lead (taxobox) image for a taxon should be a line drawing or a live/preserved photograph, if both options are of similar quality? This question arises frequently, for example at Discoplax longipes, where we have a detailed, high-quality, black and white line drawing that could be replaced with either this high-quality colour photograph of a preserved specimen or by this lower-quality photograph that has the plus of showing a live specimen in situ. It wouldn't be unreasonable to include all three in the article, but a lead image should still be picked. Do we have a general preference for whether the lead image should be an illustration, a preserved photograph, or a live photograph (when they are of comparable quality) or is it best to leave the status quo of deciding article by article? I feel some sort of general consensus would be useful, since many of these articles have very few watchers and the images can be endlessly swapped around to editor's aesthetic whims. I myself prefer in situ photographs for the lead, as the higher-detail preserved photographs and scientific drawings are better-suited, in my opinion, to the Description section, and live photographs are more representative of the entire article. Cremastra (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd somewhat prefer a photo over an illustration (especially if the photo is in color and the illustration is black and white). However, I think you're exhibiting some unconscious bias with the organisms you are interested in asking whether an illustration or a photograph should be first (assuming multiple high quality images are even available). It is not that simple.

For highly sexually dimorphic organisms, does the male or female go first? I don't think there's an answer to that, unless it's "use an image with both sexes" (which means it's almost certainly is going to be an illustration rather than a photograph).

For large plants (trees), I'd prefer an illustration (or photo-montage) with details of leaves/flowers/fruits/habit over a photo of the entire plant where details can't be made out, but good illustrations are few. I guess I'd prefer a closeup photo capturing flowers and leaves over a photo of an entire plant. Plants cultivated for edible tubers, fruits or seeds would be better with an initial image of the edible part than an image of a flower.

People are more likely to encounter workers than queens of social insects. Sometimes larval forms will be more familiar than adults (I think that is the case with Pyrrharctia isabella for North Americans). Galls might be more informative than images of gall-makers. Microscopic plant pathogens might be better with images of infected plants than illustrations/microphotos of the cells.

I think there's been some discussion about life restoration illustrations vs. fossils (either photos or illustrated) for paleontological taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intersex (biology) § Requested move 3 July 2025. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we continue using invalid prokaryotic taxa with quotes? Jako96 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]