Talk:Grey-faced sengi

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Low-importance).

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Grey-faced sengi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2008, and was viewed approximately 2,758 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Grey-faced Sengi is the first living species of elephant shrew to be described in over a century?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

First in 126 years?

I restored this sentence. It has been claimed that Rhynchocyon cirnei shirensis was described only in 1968, but the page on Rhynchocyon cirnei, or the Checkered Elephant Shrew, says 1847. Are we talking about a subspecies maybe? The ternary name seems to imply so, and in that case the original claim still stands.

In any case, we should get this issue sorted out quickly, since it's the chosen hook for the article as a DYK nominee. Lampman (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a subspecies, that's why it has a ternary name.

The original claim is - I'm sorry to say it - at best debatable, at worst nonsense. It claims that the last discovery was made 126 years ago, and the context suggests that it is about elephant shrews in general. In this case, it is certainly not true, since Nementchatherium was described in 2001. It is also not true when it refers to Rhynchocyon, because R. c. shirensis was described in 1968. The only case when the sentence is true is when it is about living species of Rhynchocyon, the last of which was described in 1881, but I cannot see how one can deduce that from the context of the sentence. Note that there are also two fossil Rhynchocyon, R. clarki en R. rusingae, described in 1969. Ucucha 10:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lampman (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, a suggestion for DYK: "... that the largest species of sengi, the Grey-faced Sengi, was described only in 2008 and was the last new species of sengi to be discovered since over a century?". Ucucha 18:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put up a short and a long alternative: "...that the Grey-faced Sengi is the first living species of elephant shrew to be described in over a century?" and "...that the largest species of elephant shrew, the Grey-faced Sengi, was described only in 2008, and is the first living species of sengi to be discovered in over a century?" Lampman (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sengi or Elephant Shrew

I wonder if this article should be titled Grey-faced Elephant Shrew rather than Grey-faced Sengi? MSW3 lists every other species in the order Macroscelidea as an "Elephant Shrew". Thoughts? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSW3 also tends to use "Gray" rather than "Grey". So I wonder if this should be Gray-faced Elephant Shrew. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mails

I've just removed all the spurious uses of the {{cite interview}} tag referring to e-mails. Personal communications are not reliable sources and constitute original research. Much of the content of this article may need to be removed because of this. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax or mistake?

If this animal is actually only 5.6 cm / 2.2 in long and weighs in at 710 g / 25 oz, you sure would know it was a new species: given any normal mammalian body shape, it would have to be made of something a lot heavier than lead. (A cylinder of solid osmium, densest of the elements, the same length and of diameter 2.54 cm / 1.0 in, would weigh only 646 g / 23 oz.) The emphasis on the animal's weight in the Rathbun quote made me wonder if somebody's testing our numeracy here. David K (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source, and you're right; it's actually 56 cm. Ucucha 20:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

The article is currently tagged for original research. Can someone point out what is of concern as original research? There are some citation needed tags. Can the OR tag be removed? RJFJR (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]