Talk:List of cervids

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pudu mephistolephis.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cervidae organization

@Pangoingetl: I've reverted a series of edits to this page, which did several different things at once, and wanted to explain why since the edit box is too small. I'm open to re-instating most of them, I just wanted to discuss first. The changes had been:

• Organizing species into tribes
• Merging Hydropotinae into Capreolinae
• Moving Eld's deer out of Rucervus and into the monotypic Panolia

• For the tribes, none of these mammalian lists organize that way- they're often very mutable and less solidly grounded (and sourced!) than subfamilies, and I'd like to keep that consistency.
• For the Hydropotinae merge, it seems still unclear if this is the consensus- Hydropotinae itself mentions studies from the 90s (so, before MSW (2005), which lists it), but you sourced Gilbert 2006 which merges it. That said, it seems to be still in wide use, so any other sources would be helpful in deciding. I see that it's been slowly excized from Deer, though not entirely.
• For Eld's deer, I think we need a broader source- the 2020 paper is good, but Eld's deer itself cites a 2004 study, so older than MSW, and the ASM database still has it as Rucervus. Basically anything that shows that the 2020 paper is widely accepted as the current state of deer organization would be really helpful, and we can just swap that out here and at deer and at List of artiodactyls. --PresN 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: It is natural in current biology to perform phylogenetic classification based on molecular phylogeny. Before the early 2000s, classification was done by morphology, but since the latter half of the 2000s, classification of all organisms has been updated along the molecular phylogeny. Deer is no exception.

• All molecular analyses have shown that Hydropotes is a sister taxon of Capreolus. “Hydropotinae” is based on the outdated morphological classification, and current phylogenetical classification by molecular analysis completely deny this subfamily. (Pitra et al. 2004, Gilbert et al. 2006, Hassanin et al. 2012, Heckeberg et al. 2016, and Heckeberg 2020)

• Multiple molecular phylogenetic analyses have shown that Eld's deer is most closely related to Père David's deer not to Barasingha (Pitra et al. 2004, Gilbert et al. 2006, Hassanin et al. 2012, Heckeberg et al. 2016, Heckeberg 2020, Ghazanfarullah et al. 2021 and Kumar et al. 2021), and it is becoming mainstream to use Panolia instead of Rucervus for Eld's deer. (Pitra et al. 2004, Turvey et al 2017, Samejima & Matsuoka 2020, and Croitor 2021)

• The topology of molecular phylogenetic trees of Cervidae studied so far is almost consistent. Especially, the following five clades are stably detected in almost all molecular phylogenetic analyses. (Pitra et al. 2004, Gilbert et al. 2006, Hassanin et al. 2012, Heckeberg et al. 2016, and Heckeberg 2020.)

1. Muntiacus, Elaphodus
2. Axis, Rucervus, Dama, Elaphurus, Panolia, Rusa, Cervus
3. Alces
4. Capreolus, Hydropotes
5. Rangifer, Mazama, Odocoileus, Blastocerus, Ozotoceros, Hippocamelus, Pudu

There are many sources labelling each clade as follows. (Gilbert et al. 2006 and Samejima & Matsuoka 2020 are typical.)

• 1 for “Muntiacini”[1]
• 2 for “Cervini” [2]
• 3 for “Alceini”[3]
• 4 for “Caprolini”[4]
• 5 for “Odocoileini”[5]

--Pangoingetl (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pangoingetl: Okay, thank you for all of that. I've re-instated your changes, and will update the order list to match. --PresN 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)