Talk:Sorex

Order of species

Hi everyone. I'm changing the list to reflect the standard listing found on most other species lists and to facilitate faster searching of those lists. Feel free to continue what I've started, or wait until tomorrow evening when I'll have a chance to finish it. I hope no one finds this an inconveinience. Thanks! TeamZissou 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm changing it back to how I listed it.... as listed in MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TeamZissou: "I'm changing the list to reflect the standard listing found on most other species lists and to facilitate faster searching of those lists."

UtherSRG: "And I'm changing it back to how I listed it...."

Therein lies the difference... TeamZissou 19:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I cite where I'm getting my information from. Which is where I've gotten nearly all of my information for the mammal articles I've editted, which is quite a lot. The ones I have not yet editted, I just haven't gotten to, but they will all be consistent with the list of placental mammals. I'm currently working on the feline half of Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the one who's edited the list of placental mammals more than anyone else... How is that an objective source? As to the MSW, the Smisonian website lists Sorex in this way if you follow the tree from the root. Why would they do that if listing by common names made so much sense? TeamZissou 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Zissou, but your link is to the prior version which did not apply common names. The attempts to standardize mammal common names started with Wilson and Cole (2000) and the third version of Wilson and Reeder (from 2005) is the closest current approximation of an industry standard (if there is such a thing) and would really be the subject of this debate. Also, the objectivity of using the data on the list of placental mammals page is verifiable by anyone with access to this text. Uther isn't making this stuff up. --Aranae 04:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some subspecies to the Sorex list. I hope nihiLISTs leave them alone. In any event, when each of those species has an independent article the references and subspecies are available. TeamZissou 05:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing

Two species seem to be missing from this page: Sorex vulgaris and Sorex pygmaeus. Any idea why? There's no redirect or anything; searching for either on Wikipedia results in nothing. The rest of the web seems to think they're valid species, though. 75.211.171.75 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We follow MSW3 for the most part when it comes to mammal species listings. MSW3 lists vulgaris as a synonym for Sorex araneus and pygmaeus as a synonym for Sorex minutus. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]