Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:22, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Changing the taxonomy of cats

The genus Catopuma has been merged with Pardofelis, according to several sources (such as ). These sources also merge the genus Profelis with Caracal. Perhaps we should implement these changes in the respective articles on Wikipedia? DaMatriX (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I've been told that the IUCN is not an acceptable source for taxonomy changes. However, the changes I've requested are the result of the influential work by Johnson et al: Johnson WE, Eizirik E, Pecon-Slattery J, et al. (January 2006). "The late Miocene radiation of modern Felidae: a genetic assessment". Science (journal) 311 (5757): 73–7. doi:10.1126/science.1122277. PMID 16400146.

Some of the changes that are suggested by Johnson et al. are:

• The merging of Catopuma and Pardofelis
• The merging of Profelis and Caracal, perhaps Leptailurus should be included as well
• The merging of Uncia and Panthera
• The merging of Herpailurus and Puma (already implemented in MSW3 and widely accepted), perhaps Acinonyx should be included as well
• Taking the Pallas Cat (Felis manul) out of Felis and placing it somewhere in between Felis and Prionailurus. The former genus Otocolobus may be resurrected for this purpose

The IUCN has implemented these changes, while the official website of the Cat Working Group has not been updated for many years. Mammal Species of the World, however, has not (yet) implemented these changes, although I'm confident this will be a matter of time. Perhaps someone could contact the authors of MSW about these issues? DaMatriX (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, we should implement such taxonomic changes when they are generally accepted in the recent scientific literature. MSW is a 2005 book and there have been no updates since then, although it may become more dynamic in the future. The Red List may often be a good source to use in mammalian taxonomy: it is updated regularly and reflects the efforts of many taxonomists.

At least some of these taxonomic changes in felids seem to be fairly commonly accepted outside the Red List (for example, elevating F. manul into its own genus); these changes should therefore also be carried out on Wikipedia. Ucucha 08:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we should not implement these changes immediately, at least not until there has been some more discussion about this. In that way we can determine if the majority of Wikipedians (interested in this subject) agrees with these changes. DaMatriX (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 2008 the IUCN seems to be a very good source as far as the taxonomy on mammalian species and genera is concerned. The next few years the Handbook of the Mammals of the World most certainly will also prove very useful in this regard. The first volume, published this year, covers the Carnivora (Fissipedia, actually). The work mentioned above is listed in its bibliography. The taxonomy of cats is given as follows:

• Pantherinae
  • Neofelis: Neofelis nebulosa, Neofelis diardi
  • Panthera: Panthera uncia, Panthera tigris, Panthera pardus, Panthera leo, Panthera onca
• Felinae
  • Pardofelis: Pardofelis marmorata
  • Catopuma: Catopuma badia, Catopuma temminckii
  • Leptailurus: Leptailurus serval
  • Profelis: Profelis aurata
  • Caracal: Caracal caracal
  • Leopardus: Leopardus pardalis, Leopardus wiedii, Leopardus colocolo, Leopardus jacobitus, Leopardus tigrinus, Leopardus guigna, Leopardus geoffroyi
  • Lynx: Lynx rufus, Lynx canadensis, Lynx lynx, Lynx pardinus
  • Acinonyx: Acinonyx jubatus
  • Puma: Puma yagouaroundi, Puma concolor
  • Otocolobus: Otocolobus manul
  • Prionailurus: Prionailurus rubiginosus, Prionailurus planiceps, Prionailurus viverrinus, Prionailurus bengalensis
  • Felis (domestic cat not listed): Felis chaus, Felis nigripes, Felis margarita, Felis bieti, Felis silvestris

-- Torben Schink (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the above source, the use of the genus Uncia should be discouraged on Wikipedia in favour of Panthera uncia. However, the merging of Profelis/Caracal/Leptailurus and Pardofelis/Catopuma are apparently not yet official. I'm confident they will become official in the near future - until that time, we should keep the respective genera seperate, at least for the time being. By the way, the genus Otocolobus is cleary back in favour again - this implies we should move the Pallas Cat from Felis to Otocolobus on Wikipedia. Case (probably) closed - for the moment. DaMatriX (talk) 19:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No. A single article, or non-peer reviewed source is insufficient to change the taxonomy of species. When Jaguar was up for FA, I dug through the taxonomic literature at that moment related to Pantera, and the result is that there is no consensus, see Jaguar#Taxonomy. If someone wants to change this, it either has to be a sold review covering all the literature or a comprehensive study using most studies, not one. The IUCN page contains non-existing ref's and they do not list the reference, only inline citations. So, lets not run to fast here. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to Uncia? In that case, I don't think that's a correct representation of what is in the jaguar article. It gives two refs for Uncia still being a separate genus, of which one is a Red List entry about the jaguar which doesn't seem to say anything about P. uncia at all, and the other is some 1996 document, which has little relevance to today's taxonomic consensus. Ucucha 07:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, is this statement in the Leopardus article accurate: "Leopardus was previously regarded as a subgenus of the genus Felis." A "subgenus"? Is that a real term? Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

See subgenus. Jack (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know this discussion now is 2+ weeks old, but I'll comment anyway. Surely, when a peer-reviewed article is published, it is a valid possibility to follow it (emphasis on possibility – some clearly shouldn't be followed). I find it hard to believe that no people on WP:MAMMAL are able to judge the validity of evidence such as that presented in Johnson et al (2006)... or is WP:BIRD really that far ahead here? Things move fast in taxonomy and MSW3 is increasingly out-of-date. It should be noted that there already are several cases where new publications have been used as an argument for changes on wiki, e.g. Paradoxurus and Moschiola. The evidence for genus changes in the above mentioned Johnson et al (2006) easily matches the evidence for having four species of Paradoxurus on Sri Lanka presented in Groves & Mamemandra-Arachchi (2009) or the evidence for three species of Moschiola by Groves & Meijaard (2005). And yes, I know Groves is one of the authors of MSW3, but surely new evidence should be based on its quality, not the name of the author. I'm not saying Groves & Mamemandra-Arachchi (2009) or Groves & Meijaard (2005) are wrong – just that the willingness to follow them when unwilling to follow others is strange to say the least. Finally, IUCN is not a reference for taxonomy in themself, but they do present a good pointer when trying to establish if changes proposed in some new article are likely to gain general use. 212.10.88.5 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with taxonomic changes is that the taxonomic system was designed before Darwinian evolution was known. Also, there is always room for debate since molecular and genetic tests are still hotly debated and questionable, and conflicts often arise with people basing phylogeny on morphology. Consequently many researchers have no interest in taxonomy, often referring to it as "too changeable, and too subject to the whims of particular individuals" (Anne Yoder, personal conversation in email). Instead, they prefer to focus on cladistics. In my work to re-write the Lemur page (still forthcoming), I can see that lemur taxonomy is a complete mess, even within the academic literature. There are often three opinions to everything and no universal support. From what I can tell, in that community Groves does not carry a lot of respect, so MSW3 is often blown off in the literature or casually offered as an alternative. Therefore, I agree that choosing one person as a primary taxonomic authority is a bad policy here on Wiki. I recommend at least 2 authorities. (For lemurs, I use Mittermeier and Groves, but weigh the findings of Yoder to choose between the two when they conflict.) It is good to consider the concensus from the academic literature, but not good to jump on the first paper published describing a new species or offering a new taxomony, unless the paper bares the name of one of your taxonomic authorities for that animal group. (It is, however, good to mention the new discoveries and suggested taxonomic changes in the body of the article.) –Visionholder (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

image help

I've tentatively identified File:Rodent on a rock in South America-8.jpg as a wild long-tailed chinchilla. Can someone who knows more confirm? Having a wild shot of a chinchilla species would be a great addition to this article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know, but User Aranae says that this is a picture of a viscacha (see edit summary), and it does seem to have the colours of a viscacha. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The tail looks too short on the viscachas. Then again, there seem to be more than one misidentified South American rodent - this viscacha is clearly something else. Perhaps we shuld move this whole conversation to WP:MAMMAL to get more eyes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is probably better to get more opinions. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Chinchilla. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That other 'viscacha' you mentioned looks like a Notomys or a jerboa. I can't think of any South American rodent that should look like that. Ucucha 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely a jerboa. --13² 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's coloring is more viscacha-ish, however, it's body just...isn't. It's long and sleek with a very long tail, which a long-tailed chinchilla should have. It just doesn't have that "rabbit" body that the viscacha seem to have. --13² 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a viscacha - Lagidium peruanum. 100% certain. If you look at the other photos in the flickr stream where it originated you'll also see it was taken at Machu Picchu where viscachas are fairly common but no chinchilla ever has been recorded. 212.10.86.216 (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to have stirred up trouble and then left. The pelage color and texture really don't fit with either species of chinchilla. If 212.10.86.216 is correct about this being from Machu Picchu, it also is clearly not C. lanigera. I think the Lagidium peruanum ID is potentially a good one, but I'm much more comfortable saying the animal isn't C. lanigera than saying what it is. --Aranae (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Check another photo taken 1½ hours later than the viscacha photo (see "More properties" in lower right corner for clock). There are few ways to get to Machu Picchu and none of them would allow someone to visit another part of Peru with bamboo (as can be seen on the photo with the viscacha; probably Chusquea) during daylight hours on the same day (let alone within 1½ hours), as the rapidly accessible areas around the Sacred Valley and Cusco city itself all either are too dry or too high. For people that haven't visited Machu Picchu, I'm pretty sure the background on the viscacha photo are the near-vertical cliffs that rise above the Urubamba River when standing at Machu Picchu and looking in the direction away from Aguas Calientes. But regardless – even if the locality had been unknown, this is certainly L. peruanum, a species which, somewhat unsurprisingly, follows both Allen's and Gloger's rule. On a separate issue, the "red link" photo linked to in the earlier comment by Sabine's Sunbird was a Long-eared Jerboa, but I nominated it for speedy delete because it was copyvio. 212.10.88.5 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dental formula template

Since mammals have heterodont dentition, I am trying to create a template for WP:MAMMAL that will help editors include dental formulas in articles, yet unlike Template:Dentition and Template:Dentition2, it can be placed inline with text. Template:DentalFormula is a very simple template that uses <math>...</math> markup to either generate a simple dental formula (upper over lower) or a dental formula as well as the total number of teeth. (Additionally, it also provides alternative text automatically.)

For example, a simple dental formula would be diplayed by using the following: {{DentalFormula|upper=2.1.3.3|lower=2.1.3.3}}

This would yield: 2.1.3.32.1.3.3

To also show the total number of teeth, use the following: {{DentalFormula|upper=2.1.3.3|lower=2.1.3.3|total=36}}

This would yield: 2.1.3.32.1.3.3 × 2 = 36

Unfortunately, it's not working yet because of what seems like a parser issue. I've opened the question on WT:MSM and MediaWiki. Since this will (hopefully) benefit WP:MAMMAL, maybe someone on the team with lots of template experience can help figure it out. –Visionholder (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed, and the template is now available for use. Hopefully project members can find it useful. –Visionholder (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Identification of monkey

File:Red-shanked Douc (3091716427).jpg to confirm identification please. Snowman (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It does look like a douc to me, but I'm unfortunately unable to say what species it is, which is a pity, as the picture would be a really good addition to our article on that species. Perhaps you should also ask WP Primates? Ucucha 13:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The image was taken at the Philadelphia Zoo, according to the image summary. At the zoo's web site, it lists the Red-shanked Douc Langur and provides a photo to match. No other langurs are listed under their primates section, so unless the zoo is in error (which is unlikely since they are an AZA accredited zoo), this should be correct. Also, it seems to be the closest match that I have in series of B&W photos of all langur species in "Walker's Primates of the World" (ISBN: 0-8018-6251-5). Hope that helps. –Visionholder (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That provides some good evidence that it is red-shanked, yes. Our article on doucs also gives a picture of a red-shanked from Philly Zoo. From the photos I found on the internet, this animal appears to be definitely a douc, definitely not a black-shanked douc, and probably not a grey-shanked douc, although grey-shanked and red-shanked look rather similar. I'd go with my impression and, more importantly, with the zoo's web site and list it as a red-shanked douc. Ucucha 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Resources

I am not sure if it has been brought up before, but where do they go. http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/default.html are pft scientific articles with from the The American society of Mammologists. Thats all Enlil Ninlil (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Animal for identification

Re: File:Dasyurus geoffroii -Billabong Koala and Wildlife Park-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the muzzel is not as slener as the northern, I don't see spots on the tali like the Spoted_tailed Quoll, so it is either an Eastern or Western Quoll. The uniform colour suggests a Western Quoll. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Common names

Over the past few weeks, I have worked on some of the articles on oryzomyines, a group of mostly fairly obscure Neotropical rodents. Our articles on most of these are located at common names, mostly but not exclusively from the IUCN Red List (see User:Ucucha/Oryzomyini#Common names for an overview).

I have become increasingly dissatisfied with this situation. Problems with oryzomyine common names include ambiguity (Allen's Rice Rat, Large-headed Rice Rat, Big-headed Rice Rat), confusing names (Large- and Big-headed are different species and Broad-headed is another, Talamancan Oryzomys and Talamancan Rice Rat, as well as Ecuadoran Oryzomys and Ecuadorian Rice Rat are different species even though "Oryzomys" usually = "Rice Rat" in other common names), inconsistency (St. Vincent Colilargo but Santa Lucian Pilorie in the same source), and even factual incorrectness (Small-footed Bristly Mouse for a species that is not a bristly mouse (Neacomys), but a water rat (Nectomys), and that is neither a mouse, bristly, nor small-footed). On the Wikipedia articles, the situation is confused a little more by the occasional usage of common names that don't appear to be used anywhere else (Rock pygmy rice rat, for example) or that are changed from the source for various reasons (Atlantic Forest Arboreal Rice Rat). Most of these common names are hardly if ever used in the scholarly literature, as evidenced by Google Scholar. (Incidentally, it is not true that Google Scholar always returns far more hits for the scientific name, as it does for all oryzomyines I checked: for species like Macropus rufus, Pteronura brasiliensis, and Balaenoptera musculus, which do have well-established common names, the numbers of hits are fairly similar, though often higher for the scientific name.)

The relevant Wikipedia conventions include WP:UCN and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). The former, somewhat confusingly, says "use common names", but the text makes clear that "commmon name" means "commonly used name" and not "vernacular name": "Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article, except where other specific conventions provide otherwise." For oryzomyines, I would argue that the scientific names are generally the names most commonly used in English, as the common names are not commonly used. The latter convention states "If there is a most commonly used common name in English, and it is not ambiguous, use that," referring to several mammals as examples (lion and yak among others). That would throw out most of the oryzomyine common names, as most species have more than one common name and none seems to be clearly in wider use than another. I would argue, also, that it shouldn't be interpreted as meaning that we should use a common name as soon as there is one, since otherwise we would have the tyrant lizard king, which means that the common names for the few oryzomyines with only one not-so-common name shouldn't be used either.

Now, I see the merits of the argument that common names make the articles more accessible to the lay reader. It is a powerful and important argument, but I can see several compelling arguments against it:

• Use of common names where these are not well-known may in fact make the articles less accessible to biologists, who may constitute a significant part of the audience for articles on species like these;
• Where common names are as badly standardized and often inconsistent as in many oryzomyines, the added layer of confusion may add an extra layer of confusion.
• When we use common names for oryzomyines, we will have to choose between two possibilities: choosing the common name separately for each species or using one source for all common names. The former is subjective, creates an opportunity for endless silly disputes, and is not very consistent with conventions like no original research, and the latter is also problematic as all sources that give common names for oryzomyines are problematic in some way (among other concerns, some are incomplete, and MSW 3 uses scientific names of genera in its common names, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of common names, which is making the articles more accessible to people not familiar with the scientific names).
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wikipedia conventions are, in my interpretation, more friendly to the use of the scientific name where common names are not well-known (as discussed above).

I believe the situation is best handled as I did at Megalomys audreyae, using the scientific name as the article title, but listing proposed common names prominently in the lead. In this way, the article is truly titled according to the most commonly used name, but the common names are also displayed prominently for those who prefer them. Alternatively, common names could be listed in a hatnote above the article text (both of these approaches are used in some of the herpetology GAs). In any case, common names should be retained in the article title if there is a single well-known common name (as I think is true for the Marsh Rice Rat, Oryzomys palustris), and, of course, all common names should redirect to the main article except where they are ambiguous.

I am focusing on oryzomyines now because that is the group I am working with at the moment, but the same arguments could be made for any other lesser-known mammal (a substantial majority of species, I would estimate). I would like to know what other editors here think about this issue.

An added advantage of this proposal is that we get rid of the endless discussions over capitalization in common names. Ucucha 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes you are right. Common praxe with naming gastropod articles is like this:

• Some gastropods have commons names, but they are usually more known under their scientific names. Usually wikipedists starts articles with scientific names, because those few used common name are already in encyclopedia.
• If there are two commons names for the same species, then it is often useful have article with scientific name.
• If there is common name for more species, then it is disambig page, for example Madeiran land snail.
• The main thing is to avoid confusion. Every name of the article should try to use rules, but in many cases is better to use scientific name. Do not hesitate to use scientific name, when there is a strong reason for it. --Snek01 (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Those "common" names of obscure species are not common in either sense: prevalent, as in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names); and vernacular. They are pseudo-common names. Botany has a lot of these, sometimes coined by an author for publication but not otherwise used by anyone, not even the author. They are the least useful name to use as a Wikipedia page name, and they certainly do not fulfill any Wikipedia guideline. --Una Smith (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In the absence of contrary opinions, I will start moving some of the pages to the scientific names in a few days. Ucucha 23:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I havent had a chance to reply earlier, but would like to add my support for the use of Scientific names as the article titles. The area I edit most is extinct taxa and I have never had a lot of patience for "commons names" applied to taxa which lived before modern human history, as many of the names applies are more obscure then the scientific names and /or down right inaccurate. Two examples, Canis armbrusteri, is currently at "Armbruster's Wolf", which while sometimes used is less often used then the scientific name. Equus lambei was formerly at Yukon wild ass which has a number of problems, its possibly not in the Asinus subgenus, it ranged much farther then the Yukon, and as it lived in the Pleistocene, what else would it be besides wild?. That plus several other variation on the "common name" structure lead to its move to the scientific name. all things considered, apart from a very small number of taxa with unambiguous accurate "common names" its much more accurate to have extinct taxa at scientific names. (getting off soapbox now) --Kevmin (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Kevmin. I think the problems with common names for extinct taxa illustrate many of the same problems with little-known living taxa, and in both cases common names should be used with care.

Since there is still no one disagreeing, I will now begin moving some of the pages that I think would better be at the scientific name. I won't be mass-moving hundreds of articles, just sets of articles I work on. Ucucha 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

I just nominated a lot of mammals categories for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_16#One-page_mammals_categories. It's about Polbot-created genus categories for monotypic genera. Comments would be appreciated. Ucucha 01:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing taxa

I just created a list of mammalian taxa at User:Ucucha/List of mammals, which incorporates changes made since MSW 3 was published. There is still a lot of red links, which is partly because of taxonomic changes (in which case we do need redirects), such as in the ground squirrels, but also to a large extent because we don't have the articles (see Lophuromys, Platyrrhinus, and Lonchophylla, for example). Ucucha 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock hyrax rewritten

I've pretty much rewritten Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) since it was getting confused with lots of fluff and not enough detail. I also added a number of pictures (of mine) which illustrate the points mentioned in the text. As a general point - and in my opinion - closeup photos showing characteristic features of any species are much more beneficial to a page than the most beautiful of safari shots. Arikk (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)