Talk:Mole salamander

Format, list of species of mole salamander

Great article. I just wrote a short article for Marbled Salamander and noted how this one has been expanded so expertly. A couple of minor format issues, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

• I was seeing a spurious asterisk before your bulleted lists of species and subspecies. I think this was due to starting a top-level bullet list with two asterisks. I corrected this, I think. I believe I maintained the nested lists correctly, those showing subspecies and hybrids.
• I'm not sure what the practice is here, but I feel the species list should only have Wiki links where an article exists. Otherwise, it is too frustrating to go clicking on links and get the "Create Article" dialog. Most people are not going to want to do that.

Again, a great article. I learned a lot reading it. Thanks very much. --Cotinis 13:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Cotinis! - Especially for reformatting the list. I am in the process of making species articles for all of them (yesterday I made Puerto Hondo Stream Salamander and Blunt-Headed Salamander), so it should be all blue links soon. LaurenCole 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, duh!, I've never noticed the link colors were different for pages that exist and pages that do not. I'm not colorblind, just clueless.

--Cotinis 13:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I made an edit on the longevity of marbled salamanders. 80 years should be 8-10 years. (Bobbrodman (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

The section on unisexual salamanders is 20+ years out of date and filled with factual errors. There are zero instances of Blue-spotted and Jefferson Salamanders hybridizing. In fact there is only one site known to have both species. So I rewrote the section with on unisexual citations of recent literature. Hopefully this clears things up - albeit it is still a complex situation. (Bobbrodman (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mole salamander. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050529085120/http://www.herpseeker.com/worldspecies/Caudata/ambystomatidae/ambystoma.htm to http://www.herpseeker.com/worldspecies/Caudata/ambystomatidae/ambystoma.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Split all-female lineage into new article

I think that unisexual salamanders are notable enough to have their own article. TypistMonkey (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd support an article on the topic of unisexuel salamanders. They seem to be notable in and of themselves. XeCyranium (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

support, seems like it would be useful! The Big Gooper (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Other spp of ambystomatids have unisexual populations (jeffersonianum for example). Could be good but id rather it be here than nowhere 128.210.106.76 (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@TypistMonkey I support this suggestion if other families have unisexual populations; otherwise i'd suggest to move it to Ambystoma or Ambystomatidae, as a section there Anthropophoca (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Etymology and references

The claim "and is traditionally translated as 'cup-mouth'" makes no sense in context, doesn't fit here, looks like a later addition made by someone who didn't care about making it fit into the sentence, and had a "citation needed" tag from 2009. Away with it.

The title of Tschudi's work is in all-caps. There is no reason to capitalize the adjective fossilen, so I changed that. Remarkably, Berucksichtigung is what it says, though; as a native speaker I expected Berücksichtigung.

Refs 16 and 17 claim to have DOIs. They do lead to the site of Science – but to its 404 error page. If working ones don't exist, these hypothetical DOIs should be deleted. The JSTOR links work, fortunately, and the strange lack of commas in both titles is shared with the original.

David Marjanović (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Those were my edits, and I do care about smoothly flowing sentences. I'm sorry that you found the result ungraceful. 14:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Dgorsline (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Or rather, I worked on that section. 14:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC) Dgorsline (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply!

The problem with the DOIs turned out to be that they ended in "-a" instead of ".a" for, presumably, some reason. I've fixed them, they work now.

David Marjanović (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)