James Parham commented on an older version of Clemmys muhlenbergii:

This image appears under Clemmys, but should only be under Glyptemys. Some Glyptemys images are also INCORRECTLY appearing under Clemmys. Since all have to be hid, some really nice Glyptemys images are being hid. Can we make it so they don't appear under Clemmys and don't have to be hid?

almost 3 years ago

James Parham commented on an older version of Clemmys muhlenbergii:

This image appears under Clemmys, but should only be under Glyptemys. There are many images like this. All Glyptemys images are appearing also under Clemmys, which is incorrect. Since all have to be hid, some really nice Glyptemys images are being hid and Glyptemys has no images.

almost 3 years ago • edited: almost 3 years ago

James Parham commented on an older version of Clemmys muhlenbergii:

This image appears under Clemmys, but should only be under Glyptemys. There are many images like this. All Glyptemys images are appearing also under Clemmys, which is incorrect. Since all have to be hid, some really nice Glyptemys images are being hid and Glyptemys has no images.

almost 3 years ago

James Parham commented on an older version of Clemmys muhlenbergii:

This image appears under Clemmys, but should only be under Glyptemys. There are many images like this. All Glyptemys images are appearing also under Clemmys, which is incorrect. Since all have to be hid, some really nice Glyptemys images are being hid and Glyptemys has no images.

almost 4 years ago

James Parham commented on an older version of Clemmys muhlenbergii:

Should not be listed under Clemmys. In the EOL taxonomy, "Clemmys" muhlenbergii is Glyptemys muhlenbergii.

about 4 years ago • edited: almost 4 years ago