Talk:Dermophis costaricense

	Dermophis costaricense 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.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Costa Rica Low‑importance

	Costa Rica portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica 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.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved from Dermophis costaricensis to Dermophis costaricense. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender; "species name is a noun in apposition" to genus. ASW. Relisted. BDD (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 88.148.249.186 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the reason for this move. The only reliable source provided in the article uses Dermophis costaricensis. older ≠ wiser 16:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Amphibian Species of the World and Amphibiaweb use costaricense, and so does Encyclopedia of life (though I think they only follow ASW). I note, that ITIS uses costaricensis (I know ITIS misses loads of reptiles, but I have no idea how good or up-to-date they are with amphibians). 88.148.249.186 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are talking about grammatical gender agreement as in Latin and Ancient Greek, which are the languages used for many biological names of species. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in themselves, the grammar rules of Latin are irrelevant to this debate. Just because the term looks to a Latin speaker like it's grammatically incorrect does not mean it isn't the common name, especially in the English speaking world. However, in this case it does appear like sources lean slightly more heavily towards the costaricense form than the costaricensis form (for example, 14 results on Google books as opposed to 6, from my search). — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dermophis costaricense. 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/20140627000000/http://www.iucnredlist.org to http://www.iucnredlist.org

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 13:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]