Talk:List of placental mammals introduced to Australia

List format

This is now a sublist to the List of mammals of Australia. The formats there need unifying. See the discussion at Talk:List of Australian mammals. --Glen Fergus 10:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

nonsense

why is there african mammals in the invasive section? none of those mammals have been introduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically which species are you referring to? None of the ones on this list seem incorrect on a quick look. Ucucha (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

humans

Do humans belong on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.153.212 (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Established introductions or every attempt?

It is implied from the statement 'This is a sub-list of the list of mammals of Australia.' that this list only includes established populations of introduced placentals. If so it is also a sub-list of the 'List of introduced species'. Would it not be sensible to make this list different by including all placentals for which introduction failed, or which the species was subsequently eradicated? There are currently species on this list for which there are no established populations - Eastern gray squirrel, Indian Grey Mongoose, and European Polecat. So either these species are removed, or the list is formally expanded. If no comments are forthcoming within a month I shall amend the introduction to show that the list is expanded to include previously introduced placentals. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Questions to User:Heh0002

• what is ASM?
• why does that have more authority that supplied on the Wikipedia articles for the species?
• why are you changing the taxonomy to be inconsistent within Wikipedia without consulting other editors?
• I made changes, which you reverted, without directly addressing the points that I raised. Are you in the habit of interacting with other editors in this fashion?

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC) The IUCN does not make any mention whatsoever as to the common name used in Australia for the Fallow Deer. What citation would suffice to you to convince you of the name used in Australia? On what authority are you making the change? You also did not address the point of the deer likely being a hybrid. Finally even if IUCN did mention the common name used in Australia, it's not a valid reference either.

Hi Jameel,

• • ASM is the American Society of Mammologists, a group of wildlife biologists who upkeep a database containing taxonomic information on all the world's mammals. Link to their website here: [1]
  • You cannot use other Wikipedia articles as a source, per WP:CIRC.
  • I am making bold edits, which per WP:BRD is the first step in getting consensus with other editors.
  • The name used in Australia for fallow deer is of no concern to me; I am changing it because putting "fallow deer" as a link leads to the genus page and not the page of the European fallow deer, which is the specific species introduced to Australia. Your source for the deer being a hybrid is not a reliable source, per WP:RS. That article even states: "With farm stock escapee’s taking place over time, there is no evidence to suggest that the wild Australian fallow, in some areas is not a result of a hybridisation, or has influence of Dama dama Mesopotamica." This renders your point moot.
  • IUCN is a very reliable source. It is used in almost all species articles here on Wikipedia.

Let me know if you have any further questions. Heh0002 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• Could you tell me why you consider ASM the authority on the taxonomy of the donkey and horse?
• I am not suggesting using a Wikipedia article as a source, my question referred to the sources used in the articles. That is can you please compare the authority of ASM with the authorities used in the Equus articles. I would still like you to justify this. It's been a while since I've been editing in Wikipedia, and in that time, due to delay of republication of Wilson, the American Mammalian database has arisen as the go to. I find it a little odd, only explicable by the preponderance of American editors in English Wikipedia. I would love to hear someone justify that authority.
• if you are going to make bold edits can I suggest that you start with the Wikipedia articles where the discussions were held namely the articles on particular species. This page should reflect that and should not be changed independently. What you are suggesting otherwise is akin to anarchy.
• this is an article on Australian animals and should use Australian English, which includes the common names used for animals. Common names are not proscriptive, they are what terms are used by the local language. You are missing the point of the article that I am presented in regards hydrids. I am not saying that the deer in Australia is definitely a hybrid, but that the strong possibility exists. For you to adamantly demand the use of the term "European" requires evidence that the deer is clearly not a hybrid, for which you have provided none
• IUCN is not a reliable source for common names, that is not what it is set up for. Despite it being well used it is full of demonstrable errors, particularly when it comes to distribution. I would classify it as reliable only in terms of the information specifically relating to the determination of its risk. It is a reasonable authority on taxonomy, but given that taxonomy is subjective, you can't classify it as reliable or not from that point of view.

Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• I consider ASM the authority on most mammalian taxonomy because it is the database that has been updated the most recently; Mammal Species of the World, which is usually the one used, has not been updated since ~2005.
• Like said above, it is the most recently updated taxonomic database. Validity is usually judged by how recent a source is. Of course, you can argue for another database if you can find it. I have checked both the articles for the donkey and horse, yet none of them outright state that E. f. caballus and E. a. asinus are the definitive names for these creatures. Like you said, taxonomy is subjective; thus, I try to use the most recent and valid source.
• I may try that. However, my edits are not anarchial, since there is reasoning behind them.
• The idea that this article should use Australian English makes sense, but there is no such warning at the top of the page. Feel free to add one if you wish. Another thing to note is that most of the sources about Australian fallow deer are from before there were two recognised species of Dama; previously it was a monotypic genus. Additionally, all sources I found refer to the species as Dama dama and NOT as a hybrid. You yourself have not provided a reliable source that states they are a hybrid.
• Whether IUCN is a credible source for common names, or if that is what is intended for is subjective. However, given how many other sources the IUCN pages of a species cites, I (as well as many others on Wikipedia) consider them a very reliable way to obtain information about given species. If you believe the fallow deer IUCN page has errors in distribution feel free to point them out. Also, I don't know what you mean by "I would classify it as reliable only in terms of the information specifically relating to the determination of its risk." Please elaborate. Your last sentence also contradicts itself; you claim that it is a reasonable authority on taxonomy, yet admit that it is subjective and immediately think I cannot assess it as such. I don't understand why you would agree with me on that and then backpedal just because I have a different opinion on taxonomy.

Heh0002 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• how does a database that is kept up to date make it authoritative? Do you understand the term authoritative?
• "Validity is usually judged by how recent a source is." this is complete nonsense. Please attempt to explain and justify this claim. Also you still haven't addressed the question of why you consider your source to be more authoritative than the ones used in the Wikipedia article. Validity is not synonymous with authoritative.
• Reasoning is not mutually exclusive with anarchy. Do you understand the term anarchy?
• There doesn't need to be a warning. It's in the style manual. Are you seriously suggesting that if I put a warning at the top of the page you'll put the common name back to fallow deer?
• Your response is self-contradictory. You state that "most of the sources about Australian fallow deer are from before there were two recognised species of Dama" so naturally you not find many sources that discuss the issue of it being a hybrid. It also doesn't matter what the reliability of the source (which I disagree with you about) that I provide is in terms of Wikipedia standard, do you acknowledge the possibility of it being a hybrid in Australia? Now if it is there isn't a scientific name for the creature that exists, so we can neither ascribe one, nor point to a Wikipedia article, however we can leave the common name because that is a term that is specifically ascribed to the creature in question. Admittedly the term is, on a global basis, ambiguous, but to replace it with a needlessly more specific term begs the question and in my mind would suggest certainty that it is not a hybrid.
• It's not the fallow deer page of IUCN that has errors particularly, it is the entire site that I am complaining about. From personal experience I have found the IUCN to be full of errors, and I personally now hardly ever use it as a lone source as I have found it to be unreliable. "I would classify it as reliable only in terms of the information specifically relating to the determination of its risk" what this means is that the IUCN website is set up to assess the risk to the species in question. Authors are asked to make a judgement and provide evidence to support that judgement. It does that job very well and the evidence used is very reliable. However for completeness the website has a standard format which then includes a lot of information that is not directly used in the assessment. That information I have found to be unreliable and not thoroughly vetted. You seem to be having trouble with my last sentence because you don't understand the terms authority or authoritative. May I suggest that you familiarise yourself with these terms. Could you also please familiarise yourself with the way in which taxonomy is done in the scientific community. Start by reading the wikipedia article on biological taxonomy

As a note, which I hope you don't take to much offense to, you appear to have a history of difficulty with your wikipedia editing. In the short time that you've had this account you've had warnings put onto your user page. You also seem experienced with editing, and yet your account is new. Could this be because a previous account was blocked? Is there something that you could be learning from this experience? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No response to my points. I will revert again Jameel the Saluki (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

References