Jump to content

Talk:Conidae

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miscellaneous notes

[edit]
Cone snails are the only known animals that produce D isomer amino acids.

This sounds extremely interesting, now where's the source ? Taw 00:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cone snails are the only known animals that produce D isomer amino acids.

There are no references for this in the article, and searching google and pubmed doesn't return any relevant results. So unless someone has some reference, I'm removing this sentence. Taw 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


If you enter "cone snail containing D isomer amino acids?" into Google, you will find that the issue concerning amino acids comes up..and not only with the Cone Snail. Other land dwelling snails seem to contain useful amino acids. Molliemcguire 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)molliemcguire[reply]

non scientific name for conus geographus?

Geography cone. SeeConus JoJan 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having researched cone snails extensively for a report, I think I can be of help here. Conus geographus, like many other cone snails, is simply given the common name "cone snail". As for the amino acids part, the snails produce extremly potent neurological chemicals that "hack" the nervous system to do things like cause instant paralysis. They are being researched for medical purposes because of their extrem speed of effect, and lack of side effects(which would slow down the venom by getting in the way, a bad thing for a slow moving snail.) --Scorpion451 06:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seemed unnecessary in the introduction, so I removed it. "The shell when handled should be held with a large forceps since the harpoon can reach any part of the snail's shell surface. A wound caused by a cone sting should be treated by dipping the affected region in hot water for one hour in order to reduce the pain."CalamusFortis 18:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

[edit]

First of all why the redirect. Articles on taxa (e.g. family Conidae) should be under a taxonomic, not vernacular heading .

Overall a collection of interesting facts but mostly regarding their venomous aspect with little on the general biology, ecology, or taxonomy.

Perhaps the Conidae artilce should be retaimed with basic information and taxobox with a link (not redirect) to this article, basically as is.

John McDonnell 14Jume2009 —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Conus synonyms

[edit]

There is a lot of genus that are synonyms of Conus but linking to a non-existing article. Should the links be removed or should a redirect be put in each case ? I'd go for a redirect since they would be picked up by the search engine. zubrowka74 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed this paragraph

[edit]

I removed this paragraph because currently it is out-of-date, and I am not sure it needs including now, at least not in its present form. If people want to include it, my option is that it should be edited to be more up-to-date and relevant. Invertzoo (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The World Register of Marine Species places all species within the family Conidae in the genus Conus and the genera recognized by Tucker & Tenorio 2009 are considered to be "alternate representations".[1] Debate within the scientific community regarding this issue continues, and additional molecular phylogeny studies are being carried out in an attempt to clarify the issue.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]"

References

  1. ^ http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=14107 Classification: Traditionally, all cone shells have been included in the Linnean genus Conus. Tucker & Tenorio (2009) have recently proposed an alternative shell- and radula-based classification that recognizes 4 families and 80 genera of cones. In WoRMS, we currently still recognize a single family Conidae (following Puillandre et al. 2011), but Tucker & Tenorio's 80 genera classification is presented as "alternative representation". [P. Bouchet, 14 Aug. 2011]
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Systematic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bouchet 2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference C.M.L. Afonso 2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ N. Puillandre, E. Strong, P. Bouchet, M. Boisselier, V. Couloux, & S. Samadi (2009), "Identifying gastropod spawn from DNA barcodes: possible but not yet practicable", Molecular Ecology Resources 9:1311-1321.
  6. ^ Tucker J.K. & Tenorio M.J. (2009), Systematic Classification of Recent and Fossil Conoidean Gastropods, ConchBooks, Hankenheim, Germany, 295 pp.
  7. ^ P.K. Bandyopadhyay, B.J. Stevenson, J.P. Ownby, M.T. Cady, M. Watkins, & B. Olivera (2008), The mitochondrial genome of Conus textile, coxI-conII intergenic sequences and conoidean evolution. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 46: 215-223.
  8. ^ S.T. Williams & T.F. Duda, Jr. (2008), Did tectonic activity stimulate Oligo-Miocene speciation in the Indo-West Pacific? Evolution 62:1618-1634.
  9. ^ R.L. Cunha, R. Castilho, L. Ruber, & R. Zardoya (2005), Patterns of cladogenesis in the venomous marine gastropod genus Conus from the Cape Verde Islands Systematic Biology 54(4):634-650.
  10. ^ T.F. Duda, Jr. & A.J. Kohn (2005), Species-level phylogeography and evolutionary history of the hyperdiverse marine gastropod genus Conus, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 34:257-272.
  11. ^ T.F. Duda, Jr. & E. Rolan (2005), Explosive radiation of Cape Verde Conus, a marine species flock, Molecular Ecology 14:267-272.
  12. ^ B. Vallejo, Jr. (2005), Inferring the mode of speciation in the Indo-West Pacific Conus (Gastropoda: Conidae), Journal of Biogeography 32:1429-1439.
  13. ^ Biggs, J. S., Watkins, M. Showers Corneli, P. and Olivera, B. M. (2010). Defining a clade by morphological, molecular, and toxinological criteria: distinctive forms related to Conus praecellens A. Adams, 1854 (Gastropoda: Conidae). Nautilus 124:1-19 (naming new species and moving species from Kurodaconus to Turriconus).
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request to merge Cone snail into this page

[edit]

Cone snail is just the common name for Conidae, so I believe that the pages should be merged. InvalidOS (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Against merging the article Cone snail into the article Conidae is stupid. I read that scientists are planning to break up the cone shells into more then one family.Catfurball (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge cone snail into Conidae

[edit]

I would like to "repropose" a request to merge the two together, they are on the same subject cone snail is the common name for Conidae as of this moment the request was previously closed against it based on the idea that Conidae was broken up into multiple families. These families were moved out yes, but none of the genera moved out were commonly called cone snails. The genera and species moved into Mangellidae mostly have no common names, and the few that do are turrids, same with Conorbidae. The proposal to merge over at Talk:Cone snail closed as not merged due to the fact that the articles had a different focus (despite the fact that a merge would have combined both articles so the "focus" argument is flawed. This is also despite the fact that the discussion was stronger in favour of merge than not, with the user who came up with the focus argument neutral to the merge. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who proposed the merger last time, I think it's strange that the discussion was closed as not merge, given that most of the comments were either in favor of a merger or at least open to one, but I didn't really have the time to get around to reopening the discussion. My preference would still be in favor of merging Conidae into Cone snail rather than vice versa (it is common practice for families with widely known, taxonomically well-defined common names to be at the common name and not the taxon name, e.g. Ant instead of Formicidae, Heron instead of Ardeidae, or Scallop instead of Pectinidae), but either way I think the two should be merged as they refer to the same group of animals. It doesn't make sense to have a page on cone snails that omits discussion of their taxonomy or a page on Conidae that omits discussion of the biology of members of the family, so the "different scopes" argument is not a reason to keep the pages separate, but I do agree that a Taxonomy of Conidae page could be warranted that goes into more detail than covered on the main Cone snail/Conidae page. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree a merge would make sense, and I second it being into the common name, with the proviso that anyone making the merge either way do it properly and not just dump unique content contained in the 'merged from' page, as was done in the recent bold redirect. Captainllama (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added merge proposal notices in the hopes that more people see this discussion. I put them up as saying the proposal was to merge Cone snail into Conidae because that's how the current proposal began, but I maintain my previously stated preference to merge into Cone snail rather than the other way around. Ornithopsis (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Plantdrew, JoJan, Jts1882, SilverTiger12, Faendalimas, and Klbrain, who were involved in the previous discussion. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see three comments leaning against a merge (JoJan, Plantdrew and myself) and two supporting the original proposal. With such an even split, I think the close appropriate.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your compromise proposal of moving Conidae to Taxonomy of Conidae was a reasonable one. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. Both articles cover essentially the exact same subject. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the opposite (merging "Conidae" into "Cone snail"), as usually "common" names are preferred over "taxonomical" designations (save for when there's no common name for a particular species/genus/clade/etc.).Pescavelho (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To sum up the current state of this rather protracted discussion, between this discussion and the previous three, eight people have supported merging the two articles: four support merging cone snail into Conidae (InvalidOS, Faendalimas, SilverTiger12, Lavalizard101), three support merging Conidae into Cone snail (Captainllama, Pescavelho, and myself), and one didn't specify whether they prefer one option over the other (ZKevinTheCat). Six people have favored keeping them separate (Invertzoo, Catfurball, Jts1882, JoJan, Plantdrew, and Klbrain). The main objections raised to the merger are that the exact taxonomic boundaries of Conidae have fluctuated over time, and that the Conidae article is focused on the taxonomic history of the family Conidae while the cone snail article is on them as organisms. However, "Conidae" and "cone snail" both historically (before 1993) and currently (since 2011) have referred to the same thing, and per WP:NOTDICT it is inappropriate to have two separate articles on the same topic. As I have mentioned previously, the argument that the articles have different scopes (with biology going in the cone snail article and taxonomy going in the Conidae article) is flawed because the biology of members of the family Conidae is surely within the scope of the article on Conidae, and the taxonomy of cone snails is surely within the scope of the article on cone snails. I recognize that the Conidae article, as it currently stands, has far more detail on conid taxonomy than would really be warranted in the article on cone snails, so I am open to the compromise solution of redirecting Conidae to Cone snail while keeping the current content of Conidae in a separate Taxonomy of Conidae page in accordance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I still support the idea of merging the articles. I will acknowledge that my preference towards Conidae rather than Cone Snail is largely my personal opinion which is that articles should be under scientific terms with all common names being used as redirects. I have several reasons for this including some specific to this set of articles. The idea of using common names is generally referring to species and genus articles, not families and was in its origins developed for species articles. Second is my personal opinion that common names have less global appeal and relevance. Common names are not as common as people think they are usually geographically isolated and I view Wikimedia projects as having a global reach. Third I think (and I acknowledge this is the scientist in me saying this) the use of common names as article titles represents a dumbing down of the educational reach of Wikipedia and one of our aims should always be to provide high educational value. Correctly set up common names will still find the aritical. So in summary my preference is to use Conidae, but I can live with either being aware of the counter arguments which are also not unreasonable. I do not think I have said much I did not say before but am just reiterating my main points from previous. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! It's been a while, and I was still a high school student when I proposed that merge earlier, so I've certainly had time for my opinions to change... I don't think I have a strong preference for the merge target now. I just think there should be a merge, and there's a decent argument for both Conidae -> Cone snail and the other way around. Either way, there will be a redirect from one to the other. The Taxonomy of Conidae proposal sounds good, although it'd bring into question whether Conidae should redirect to Cone snail or Taxonomy of Conidae (if Cone snail is chosen as the "main title", so to speak). Water and Properties of water might be a good point of comparison, with H2O targeting Water and Oxidane targeting Properties of water. Oxidane is a niche IUPAC name for water, though it's worth noting that in this case the name Conidae for cone snails is much more likely to be encountered by someone than oxidane is for water. I'd ultimately favor Conidae targeting Cone snail in that situation because of that. InvalidOStalk 13:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conidae&oldid=1286215752"