Even though our paths don't cross too much, I respect a lot of the work you've done, and the help you've been. I tracked down an image of a Dassie rat for the article you started in order to thank you. I sure hope the Flickr uploader tagged it correctly, you can double-check it. I've found that many uploaders are willing to change the licensing on their images if one only asks (plus people love to see their own photos being used on wikipedia!) Have a great holiday (whatever it may be) and a happy new year! -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria18:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. You are right that the first one is a rock hyrax. The second is an African ground squirrel, a Xerus or relative. I've found in (admittedly only West) Africa that in places where English tends to be spoken it's a commerce language and lacks detail. "Stone" is anything from a pebble to a boulder. "Stick" can be a small twig or a tree-sized pole. Terms like dassie rat, coneys, and others can apply to a wide range of only vaguely similar animals. The real poetry and detail tends to come with the tribal languages. Here and here are unfree images of dassie rats (Petromus). I'm not sure about free varieties. I appreciate the attempt and would love to see some of these unique animals get pictures. I also apologize that I have not been able to contribute as much lately. New job. --Aranae (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've actually checked in on that discussion, but don't know enough about that particular case to be able to add anything. That's actually the first place I had heard that ICZN had ruled that wild taxon names have priority over domestic varieties. --Aranae (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It apparently comes from a Belgian website, http://www.karrewiet.be, but I have not been able to find it there myself. The file name means "Australian jumping mouse", the Dutch name for Notomys alexis, which it quite clearly is not. Anyway, the image will probably be deleted because of insufficient sourcing.
Thank you for your identification. From my Kingdon Pocket Guide, the face seems to be too long and too light for tetradactyla, but that may be an artefact of the drawing or taxonomically insignificant; otherwise, they look closely similar. Ucucha15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aranae, bots are useful but unfortunately when there is an error they spread it, I'm sorry about adding repeated bad iw, my bot works on several wikis (including ocwiki and huwiki). Bots follows a rule like if A is pointing to B, B must point to A. I'm not an expert in animal taxonomy, it seems oc:Muridae and hu:Egérfélék is the same as en:Muridae, fr:Muridae it's a bit different because this article consider as synonyms muridés and Muridae (Muroidea & Muridae?). The definitive solution will be to correct bad iw links on the involved wikis, but I must know which iw are the correct ones. --Loupeter (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a bit complicated. Muroidea is a broader term (a superfamily) that contains several families. Muridae is one of those families. There was a 1993 reference which basically concluded that we know so little about how the members of the families are related that we really can't split them into families at all. Because they couldn't distinguish, they treated all members of the superfamily Muroidea in one family, Muridae (because it is the oldest name). In 1993, Muroidea and Muridae were essentially synonyms. In 2005 the same authors were able to finally split the superfamily Muroidea into several families thanks to genetic and other results. Now Muridae is much more restricted. Because hu, oc, and fr are applying the 1993 conclusions (where Muridae=Muroidea), us English editors are treating their Muridae as equivalent to our Muroidea. I think we're comfortable with that over here, but I'm not sure we can get a consensus among languages for that approach. Also I see there's a brand new fr page for Muroidea that does recognize multiple families and suggests they'll be updating to the 2005 reference shortly. Sorry, that was a long answer that wasn't really an answer. --Aranae (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my brain in the headline. Sorry about the embarrassing cloaca mistake (and thanks for the speedy correction). Hardly any sleep lately, and its showing itself. Obviously its time to leave the editing to the wakeful. I just took it from the vent disambiguation page, which implied cloaca as the definitive synonym for vent (in this sense). I will correct the disambig. and go to s--l--e--e--p...
Sorry/thanks again Hamamelis (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cryptoproctinae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
While I don't see (or haven't found) an article or guidelines on the distinction between species authority and binomial authority, I was under the impression that the species authority was whoever first identified and described the species, while the binomial authority was whoever was responsible for conferring the presently accepted binomial. That is why I had Weksler et al. (2006), who created the genus Nephelomys, listed as the binomial authority of the Costa Central rice rat, and Thomas listed as the species authority. Apparently I'm not the only one under this impression - see the bottom of this discussion.
Could you give me your view on this question, and point me toward any more authoritative source for your view?
The authority is going to be the original author. That's pretty standard practice. If the name has been altered (most commonly by being placed in a different genus) then that authority is still cited, it's just in parentheses. I'm not sure what they were getting at at the end of the discussion you linked to, but this is the format used at all of the pages that were linked at the beginning (Okapi, African Bush Elephant, Emu, and Southern Cassowary). Weksler et al., 2006 would be the source for the current name combination, but to my knowledge there is always some sort of punctuation (such as a colon) that would separate the two in formal synonymies (See Mammalian Species accounts). I'd like to point you to Wikipedia:Taxobox usage where the examples all use the format I mentioned. I encourage you to bring it up in the talk page there if you'd like a second opinion. I don't know what "species_authority" ever gets used for in practice, but it's certainly rare.
Let my corrections in no way discourage you from further editing. You're work has been great and is much needed. --Aranae (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The oryzomyine Nectomys rattus is now called the "Small-Footed Bristly Mouse" on Wikipedia, which apparently comes from the Red List. To me, this name appears to be an error, as "bristly mouse" generally refers to Neacomys (Nectomys is not bristly and is fairly large, so it would be a "rat" and not a "mouse"), and the "small-footed" part is probably a relict from Nectomys parvipes, which was once considered a separate species (it was based on a single specimen grown in captivity that didn't develop normally). Musser and Carleton use "Amazonian Nectomys" for this species, the Red List also gives "Amazonian Mouse", but the first one is rather cumbersome to use and the second is a bit too general. What do you think should be done here? Ucucha18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally can't stand the idea of using genus names as part of the common name. I'm not sure this helps, but when MSW3 and Red List aren't good enough, I tend to go to Duff and Lawson's (2004) Mammals of the World: A Checklist. They use "Water Rat" or South American Water Rat" in reference to the Nectomys species. Nowak in Walker's uses "Neotropical Water Rat". I'm not sure if "Small-footed Neotropical Water Rat" counts as OR since none of them recognize and name N. rattus as a distinct species, but I tend to like one of the "___ Water Rat" variants. Sorry, I probably just added to the mix instead of narrowing the choices down. --Aranae (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Duff and Lawson's common names are fairly good. The problem here is that Nectomys taxonomy has been reshuffled quite significantly since their publication, so that their common names are now also possibly out of date. The "small-footed" part of the name is, as I said, also problematic, because it probably derives from the former "species" N. parvipes; N. rattus as currently defined does not have especially small feet (according to published measurements). "Amazonian Water Rat" would probably be the best choice, since it is simple and accurate, but no external source uses it.
Personally, I'd say that this case indicates a larger problem with common names for animals like Nectomys: common names do not, in fact, exist, since each work that attempts to give "common" names makes up its own set and essentially no one refers to the species by any common name without the associated scientific name. In my opinion, Wikipedia should simply stick to the scientific name in such cases (and list proposed common names); this is likely also the best solution here, as the common names we are proposing here are either incorrect, inconvenient, or original research. Ucucha19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these animals really don't have a common name, but just a name invented for a checklist or two. People who actually refer to them never use a common name until there is a strange and sudden reason why it's needed (import/export permits in many countries come to mind) and then they either look things up in one of the checklists or just make up something that sounds reasonable. For example, your "Amazonian Water Rat" is the best name I've heard for this species. Nevertheless, I do tend to think that a common name provides a much needed gateway for the nonspecialist to these articles about fascinating animals that are not widely known to that audience. I guess my thought process is similar, but my conclusion is different. I also tend to think that there is no such thing as a correct common name, but I tend to think that means it doesn't matter all that much which common name an article resides under. My criteria tend to be loosely defined based on frequency of usage, accessibility to a wide audience, uniqueness, and perhaps accuracy in description. Most of wikipedia tends to think there are right answers to these questions and I respect that (and would respect your decision to move this animal to its scientific name - particularly given that the recent nomenclatural acts mean it doesn't even register in MSW3). Incidentally, have you considered weighing in at the debate at Talk:American Beaver? --Aranae (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we mostly agree on this, although I would perhaps give more weight to accuracy of description in determining which common name to use. Not every name needs to be descriptively correct--I don't have any problems with using "rice rat" for oryzomyines, even though they don't actually have much to do with rice--but when there are no well-established common names, it is important not to use an inaccurate name (such as "Small-footed Bristly Mouse").
I can see your case that use of common names makes articles more accessible to the general public, but I think this increase in accessibility is offset by a loss of accessibility to people like you and me, who know these animals by their scientific names, but do not know the common names. The instability and limited usage of common names for species like N. rattus also imply that people looking for more information on such a species will have difficulty when they use the common name. In addition, the fact that dinosaurs all known by their scientific names indicates that such names can also be accessible to the general public. Of course, much depends on the particular species under consideration; well-known species (such as Castor canadensis) should be included under their common names in my opinion. These species actually have real common names, as opposed to checklist common names, although the presence of multiple real common names causes problems in its own right in the case of C. canadensis (and presumably some other species).
The discussion on the talk page of C. canadensis illustrates what can go wrong with common names, and especially what can go wrong when the "correctness" of a name is given too much weight, as some of the people arguing for "Canadian Beaver" are doing. That is a pointless exercise. You were right when you wrote there that some proposed solutions were solving the conflict between editors at the expense of the reader. That is certainly something that should be avoided. I think I could live with using the scientific name as article title, although well-known animals such as this should generally be placed under a common name. The introduction as it is now does a fairly good (but not perfect) job at introducing the animal under its scientific name without losing accessibility. Ucucha17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as you are one of the main editors of Chinchilla I thought you'd be interested in knowing that FuzzyPandaBear (talk·contribs) has nominated it at FAC. FuzzyPandaBear does not seem to have had any direct input into the article, so I am concerned about the user's ability to address concerns raised in the FAC and about the article's readiness. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you're seeing that wild chinchilla as a "visacha" in any way whatsoever. Visacha are short a stubby and have a short tail. This wild chinchilla is very thing thin, long, and has an incredibly long tail (please re-read the title of that article). Please explain why you believe it to be a visacha, otherwise I'm going to replace the infobox image again because, really, I just don't see it. Also, please remove or change the position of the other chinchilla photo (running chinchilla). It doesn't belong in the "ecology" section. Thank you. --13216:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. Nevermind. Sorry about this. I think I may be seeing what you're getting at. Ugh. I got "brevicaudata" confused with "visacha" which aren't the same thing. I should probably take a better look at the photo. :( --13216:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do still think the picture of the chinchilla should be either removed or in a different section more fitting for it than "ecology" which really doesn't have much to do with chinchillas running, especially when they're running in a living room. ;) --13216:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I have been traveling. I hope you have felt free to remove the living room image - my only intent was my worry about the other image. It looks like the discussion about the potential viscacha is taking place elsewhere and I will respond there. --Aranae (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aranae, in my project on oryzomyines, I'm debating whether to devote an article to Oryzomys (Ekbletomys) hypenemus, described from Antigua and Barbuda by Ray in 1962. It's described thoroughly in Ray's thesis, but as a thesis, it's not validly published, and it hasn't really received much attention in the subsequent literature. It's a very interesting animal though, about as large as Megalomys desmarestii, but very different from it, and it could certainly use some Internet presence. What would you do here?
And secondly, just out of curiosity, I wonder why you have any idea what the point is of the vandal who can't accept that species go extinct in Texas and are introduced in California. I haven't seen any place where he says anything about what he's doing. Ucucha20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an unavailable name, I would be hesitant to use it. I think that already compounds an existing problem that began when Ray apparently used a name in his(?) thesis prior to publishing the name formally. It looks like authors that are more likely to be knowledgeable of the nomenclatural status of this name are avoiding it, whereas those who publish it alongside a large species list seem to be the ones using it. Woods et al. (2001, pp. 335-353 in Biogeography of the West Indies) appear to call it "undescribed species B"; Steadman et al. (1984, PNAS 81:4448-4451) call it "Oryzomyini sp.". I can't find the subgenus name anywhere and would avoid it if your only reference for its use is the original thesis. As for the species name (or the subgenus if it is being used outside of the thesis), I would not use it in the taxobox, but suppose use in the article text is acceptable given that the damage is already done. Whoever gets around to naming this properly will be forced to track down all the references that applied the name to make sure that they don't qualify as descriptions themselves. I don't think anyone will confuse a use in wikipedia as a formal description and an explanation may help future authors in their decision with what to do with it.
I think we should definitely have an article for it. The taxobox should be formatted in whatever manner we decide to use for Bosavi Woolly Rat and similar taxa. As for an article title: perhaps "Antigua and Barbuda oryzomyine"? Using Oryzomys hypenemus is kind of crystal balling since there's no guarantee that this name will be its actual name. Anyway, these are all just my opinions on the manner - it's complex and my take isn't necessarily the correct one.
As for the strange vandal I have no idea. In a good faith sense, perhaps this person just wants wikipedia to conform with his/her textbook precisely. More likely s/he found an obscure change that s/he thought should get by the other editors but doesn't. The joy of seeing your contributions get online without sense enough to try to make useful ones. --Aranae (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Yes, the species Steadman et al. refer to is the same as Ray's O. hypenemus (see Wing et al., 1968, Carib. J. Sci. 8(3-4):123-139). They write he's describing it "elsewhere", but I suppose he is taking his time for that.
I understand your point about preferably not using "Oryzomys hypenemus", but I can't see any good alternative. Inventing a common name, such as the one you suggest, is not something we should like to do on Wikipedia (and in this case, it may be misleading, as there is another oryzomyine from Barbuda, Megalomys audreyae). Using one of the names later authors ascribed to it, such as "Undescribed species B", is also possible, but such titles are of course awkward and we are probably inappropriately synthesizing the sources, which don't really equate the two, even though the Wing et al. article comes pretty close. I think the best way to handle this might be to use the name "Oryzomys hypenemus", but put it between quotation marks throughout the article. Of course, the article should also explain that the name is not formally available.
Your explanation for the vandal makes a lot of sense for Wikipedia vandals in general, but what is surprising about this one is his peristence: (s)he has been doing this for nearly a year now. He obviously knows how to edit Wikipedia and also how to add text to a talk page, although the intellectual level could use some improvement. He does do good faith edits, but his persistence in deleting extinct Texans seems done in less than good faith. I suppose we should see how this develops.
I didn't mean to imply that I was still assuming good faith with our list of mammals vandal, just that were I to do so, perhaps it is as I suggested earlier. I barely look anymore when I revert those edits. I think you are taking a good approach on the Oryzomys hypenemus article and will contribute as I get a chance. Considering the significance of extinctions of island endemics, it's amazing how many of the these West Indian rodents are unnamed. The Capromys and Geocapromys on the Cayman Islands come to mind. --Aranae (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I probably won't be able to continue work on the article until this weekend, but it'll definitely become a good article.
Yes, there is still a lot of work to be done on such insular faunas (and not only in the Caribbean--there are apparently also three new Nesoryzomys in the Galapagos, and there's a diverse undescribed murine fauna on Timor). I think it might be a good idea to make an article on oryzomyines of the Lesser Antilles to compile all records, as records like that of a small oryzomyine from Barbados and of "undescribed species A" from the northwestern Lesser Antilles do deserve a place on Wikipedia, but won't really fit in the Oryzomyini article (which, of course, should also be expanded with information on insular oryzomyines in general). Such an article would include all information published about Lesser Antillean oryzomyines, sorted by island. It may even be desirable to expand it to all Caribbean rodents, as capromyids are also full of half-known species that would be best summarized in such an article. Ucucha14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the "O. hypenemus" article and the Caribbean list are now nearing completion; I still have to look at a number of sources in the library, though. I discovered that one possibly important paper, Marsh, 1985, Journal of Barbados Museum and Historical Society 37:310, is not available here. Do you have access to it?
Do you have any additions, comments, or improvements to either article? One problem that I see is that the Mus and Rattus records in the list are still incomplete, and bound to remain so since few people bother to record them. Might it be best to get them out of the island lists altogether and mention in the lead that they occur essentially everywhere? Ucucha15:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering nominating Holochilus primigenius, but could not think of a hook. I think yours is actually quite good (particularly now that the sentence in the text is clarified). I'm sure you'll see my comments about rodents of the Caribbean. Thanks for all the love you've been giving to en wikipedia lately. Your work's been fantastic. --Aranae (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The photos are a great addition to the article; will you believe me when I say that I was actually planning on adding a few of them myself? I think the article could also use some maps, and some more general biogeography--I'll probably have to look up some of Woods's paper for that. If we do that, it might become good featured list material. Ucucha03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely believe you. There is a grand total of 1 endemic species that has pictures on wikipedia. Given that, there weren't many options as to which pictures you may have had in mind. I do think this page has serious featured list potential. It's already a really great resource. --Aranae (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated two muroid categories for deletion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 16). Both should be uncontroversial, but I thought I should let you know. The thing with categories for "Spalacidae" or "Spalacid rodents" is something we should sort out; at the moment, both forms appear in Category:Rodents. I prefer the "Spalacidae" form, because it is shorter, less subjective (after all, why not "Spalacid mammals"?), and anyone who sees the category (either as a subcategory in Category:Rodents, a subcategory of that category, or an article) will already know that the things that are in it are rodents. Ucucha17:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw Talk:Gopher (animal) and responded to your query there of a few months ago. But the reason I'm here is because of commons:File:Gopher.jpg. It seems to be a ground squirrel, but no species in Kays and Wilson really matches: it looks like a member of the townsendii group (currently in Urocitellus), but these don't occur in Colorado. What do you think? Ucucha19:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not confident with western N Amer ground squirrels at all. That said, and assuming it's from Colorado, I might guessU. elegans. A scale would be very helpful, though. --Aranae (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I originally discounted U. elegans as too dark and reddish, and also because Kays and Wilson show it as occurring only marginally in Colorado, but they may be a bit off on both counts, as the Mammalian Species account shows a more substantial distribution in Colorado and other photos show that it is fairly similar to our "gopher" ([1], for example, assuming that is correctly identified). I'll put a note on the Commons page that it is most likely U. elegans; we can never be sure without more information, but U. elegans does seem a pretty strong possibility. Ucucha14:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's mostly about excluding the other posiibilities. spilosoma, tridecemlineatus', and variegatus are all quite different from this animal. Of course this is all assuming that the animal was photographed in Colorado as indicated. The Red List is usually quite good about range maps (with the normal caveats that most species are more patchily distributed than a colored polygon might indicate) and that's where I started for distribution. Mostly I'm working on Kays and Wilson also. --Aranae (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't so sure about spilosoma, because I figured the spots on the back wouldn't be visible in our picture anyway, but the color doesn't seem to match and the tail is probably too bushy.
I haven't looked much at North American mammals, but for South American oryzomyines, the Red List maps do seem to be off the mark quite regularly: the one for Pseudoryzomys is missing the distribution segment in Misiones, NE Argentina, the one for Sooretamys has an eerily large distribution in Paraguay, and various others have distribution limits that coincide a little too closely with country borders to be credible. Of course, there is a giant difference in how much we know about these distributions in North and South America. Ucucha22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true. The red list varies widely in quality. Mostly by authority. I've even seen my own work (meager though it is) misrepresented in the range maps. My ruling out of spilosoma might be a bit biased by the one specimen that I have worked with in our teaching collection, but I think of them as sleeker, thinner (or less stuffed with cotton), and with a stiffer, sparser, less woolly pelage. The spots are quite distinct, and I think there would be some hint of that even from this pose. Illustrations such as those in Kays and Wilson tend to overemphasize some aspects of coloration (such as the distinctiveness of gray backs and tan venters) while understating others (spottedness). Overall I'm quite comfortable ruling out spilosoma. --Aranae (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/ArchOLD-2/1109056246.jpg){kind=link}