Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Taxonomy templates: updating order Cetartiodactyla?

Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes, so I hope this is okay to post here. I'm working as part of a larger group updating marine mammal species pages on behalf of the Society for Marine Mammalogy. I have just completed the first page (Dall's porpoise), where I noticed that the order was incorrect- listing Artiodactyla instead of Cetartiodactyla. Since I've learned a bit more about the templates, I now know that the edit would need to be made as far back as Artiodactyla. I tried to circumnavigate the template issue by creating a new box, but I have been informed by a more experienced editor that this is not ideal. I would like to know what the Mammal group thinks is the best way forward? Ideally, the taxonomy boxes for cetacean species should reflect the most up-to-date information included in IUCN species assessments and current literature. Is a manual box okay, or should the templates be adjusted? Thank you so much for your advice. KimNiels (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The phylogenetic position of cetaceans is pretty clear, but the nomenclature is less clear. Google Scholar shows recent papers using Cetartiodactyla as the order for traditional Artiodactyla, as well as papers using Artiodactyla as the order for cetaceans (e.g. [1]). Artiodactyla is still used in more papers than Cetartiodactyla, although use of Cetartiodactyla is climbing (in papers written from 2010-2014 the ration of Artiodactyla:Cetartiodactyla is 10.7, for 2019, the ratio is 3.5). It's hard to tell whether authors who write papers about traditional artiodactylans and use Artiodactyla as the order instead of Cetartiodactyla: a) support an expanded definition of Artiodactyla, b) don't particularly care about how whales are classified, or c) reject findings that place Cetacea within Artiodactyla. I suspect there are very few people in group c), a large number in group b), with group a) being in between b) and c). If continued use of Artiodactyla in the literature is mostly due to people who work with land animals not caring about whale classification, Wikipedia should use Cetartiodactyla. If continued use of Artiodactyla is due to workers adopting an expanded definition of Artiodactyla that includes whales, Wikipedia should use Artiodactyla. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
It's interesting that there are papers, such as doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9376-3, that explicitly use Artiodactyla to include cetaceans (in this case dolphins). It's not clear to me why it's felt necessary to change the name of the order when it's found to include a previously excluded group. However, there is a problem with the article at Even-toed ungulate since both Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla redirect to it, but it seems to me that the English name only applies to Artiodactyla s.s., i.e. not the monophyletic taxon. (Another illustration of the problems caused by not using scientific names.) Peter coxhead (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree about the nomenclature. I'm not a taxonomist, so personally, using one over the other doesn't bother me as long as the definition is clear. These pages (that we're updating) are however, being reviewed by experts, and they have pointed out the "mistake" of listing Artiodactyla instead of Cetartiodactyla. Also, all IUCN assessments and species pages have switched to Cetartiodactyla. If the consensus here is to stick with Artiodactyla, perhaps the marine mammal editors should just include something about Cetartiodactyla in the taxonomy section of the article. Thank you all for the input. KimNiels (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
To answer about the taxobox, you should use the Automated taxobox. Otherwise, you would have to change the boxes on the page of every species, genus, etc. in the order. --Nessie (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Cetaceans adopted automatic taxoboxes circa September 2016, right at the beginning of major efforts to use automatic taxoboxes (I started switching plants to automatic taxoboxes in February 2017). While the editor who switched cetaceans/ungulates (and many reptiles) to automatic taxoboxes is now blocked, I think they chose to switch cetaceans and reptiles due then existing inconsistencies in manual taxoboxes; order Cetartiodactyla/Artiodactyla in cetaceans, class Reptilia/Sauropsida for reptiles. With automatic taxoboxes in place, it only takes a single edit to change the orders for cetaceans to Cetartiodactyla if it is decided to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Aside from whether this should be adopted in the autotaxobox, which is conservative by necessity, there is some opportunity for improvement to article content. The taxobox reflects some of the content in the taxonomy section of articles, the current situation might be linked (and briefly noted where relevant) from that section to illuminate the arrangement in the taxobox. ~ cygnis insignis 01:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I thought this issue had been resolved. Cetartiodactyla seemed to gather wide acceptance when the relationship was established, but then it seem that the trend was the accept the broader definition of Artiodactyla (both in the literature and on Wikipedia). I remember making a number of edits towards Cetartiodactyla and was persuaded otherwise. So a few questions and issues.
  • Is there movement in the scientific literature and by organisations towards one or the other? The IUCN is using Cetartiodactyla. The ASM's Mammal Diversity Database uses Artiodactyla. MSW3 uses Artiodactyla and Cetacea.
  • Should the project choose a new taxonomic authority for use in all articles? MSW3 is hopeless here. De facto, I'd say mammal articles are leaning towards the IUCN.
  • Is there a difference of opinion between those studying terrestrial and marine animals, favouring Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla, respectively?
  • If so, should we use different taxonomy templates to reflect the difference? Extant reptiles that fly get special treatment.
  • Are cetaceans even-toed ungulates who have lost hooves or is hoofiness an essential part of being an ungulate. The title of that page is extremely irritating and needs addressing.
Whatever the answers, we need a consistent approach. Using manual taxoboxes to get around the current preference for Artiodactyla is not a good solution.   Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Below is a table for listing who uses what. This is preliminary and incomplete so please feel free to add. @KimNiels:, can you suggest any recent taxonomic source where the relative merits of the two names are discussed?   Jts1882 | talk  12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Artiodactyla sensu lato Cetartiodactyla Artiodactyla + Cetacea
@Jts1882: I don't have any recommendations at the moment, but this has started a very interesting discussion! I would love to pass this on to some of the relevant experts in the Society for Marine Mammalogy and can share a good source when I find out.KimNiels (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This quote from the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (3rd edition) seems to summarize the current position: "The discovery of a whale + hippo relationship has cast doubt on a much older taxonomic name, Artiodactyla. First coined by Owen in 1848, this name was used up to the mid-1990s to include all terrestrial cetartiodactyls, but not cetaceans. Some authors have now redefined Artiodactyla to include Cetacea, making it equivalent to Cetartiodactyla (e.g., Spaulding et al., 2009), whereas others view Artiodactyla as being an outdated name that should be abandoned. It is suggested that readers who encounter the term Artiodactyla pay careful attention to the context where it is used to determine if the author includes Cetacea within this group." This latter is the problem. There are about 5,000 articles found by Google Scholar from 2018 onwards that use "Artiodactyla" (far more than use "Cetartiodactyla"), but most do so as a higher taxon for groups that would be placed in the s.s. circumscription, so it's not possible to tell what they really mean. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The Grubb & Groves (2011) book on Ungulate Taxonomy uses Order Artiodactyla and Infraorder Cetacea, although the latter are not covered in the book because they are not ungulates (an argument for a page move?). They mention an argument by Helgen (2003) for retaining Artiodactyla:

In this, we follow Helgen (2003; see also Asher & Helgen, 2010), who argued that if the Cetacea were the sister group to the Artiodactyla as such, the name Cetartiodactyla would be appropriate; yet, as they are deeply nested within the Artiodactyla, there should be no change of ordinal name (on the precedent of, for example, the Carnivora, which retained that name even with the inclusion of Pinnipedia).

Unfortunately the Helgen (2003) reference they give doesn't seem to have this discussion. But the argument that Cetartiodactyla was proposed in addition to Artiodactyla, a taxon containing Artiodactyla and Cetacea as sisters, rather than as a replacement for a Artiodactyla containing deeply embedded cetaceans, makes some sense. I've being trying to find a taxonomic discussion of the issue with no success. It's surprising how many books and databases still follow MSW3 and use the two traditional orders.   Jts1882 | talk  15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
There are some comparable cases with other taxa. For example, it's clear that Hexapoda is embedded within traditional Crustacea, rendering the latter paraphyletic, but I guess because "Crustacea" and "crustacean" are so well established, a different name, "Pancrustacea", is used for the monophyletic clade (the article at Crustacean is way out of date). So maybe the logic here is the same: "Artiodactyla" and "even-toed ungulate" will still be used for the paraphyletic group, and "Cetartiodactyla" for the monophyletic taxon. It remains unclear what we should do, though, given that reliable sources differ in usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems it is difficult for us to come to a consensus because taxonomists haven’t yet either. Seems clear that we mostly agree that whales and land-based even-toed ungulates are in a single clade, and a grouping of just the latter is paraphyletic. So maybe the best thing to do is to have one article using the common name (even-toed ungulates) and redirect both Cetartiodactyla and Artiodactyla to it. The article should also include all this about the name being in flux. Then we have taxonomy templates for both scientific names that pipe to the same article. If one name wins out, a quick |sameas= can be added to the deprecated synonym. So editors can display either name in the taxobox, but either way it redirects to the same place. Essentially they are synonyms, but we don’t know who junior is yet. Crazy enough to work, or no? --Nessie (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
In general, I see publications dealing with cetaceans will prefer Cetartiodactyla over Artiodactyla. This publication says "Cetartiodactyla has become the generally accepted name for the clade containing both of these orders [Artiodactyla and Cetacea]" and other studies use Artiodactyla over Cetartiodactyla to specifically exclude cetaceans. A few studies (such as this) define Artiodactyla as an order and Cetartiodactyla as a clade. Given the strong consensus cetaceans are even-toed ungulates, I'd recommend using Artiodactyla to mean excluding cetaceans and Cetartiodactyla to mean including cetaceans, but we can just leave it to the discretion of editors whether to use Artiodatcyla or Cetartiodactyla in an article if that's more agreeable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The first article does say "Cetartiodactyla has become the generally accepted name for the clade containing both of these orders" but that is in addition to retaining the traditional orders, rather than as a replacement for both. There are three approaches:
  1. A new clade Cetartiodactyla to contain orders Artiodactyla and Cetacea. This seemed to be the original usage of Cetartiodactyla, before it was established that cetaceans were deeply nested.
  2. Replace Artiodactyla with Cetartiodactyla to reflect the new composition.
  3. Redefine Artiodactyla to reflect the new composition.
Recent usage seems to divide between the latter two. I'd agree that the use of Cetartiodactyla is more common with people studying cetaceans, while studies of the phylogeny of the whole group tend to use Artiodactyla.
I don't think there is strong or any consensus that cetaceans are even-toed ungulates. The Grubb and Groves book on Ungulate Taxonomy doesn't consider cetaceans as even-toed ungulates. They treat Artiodactyla as the order containing cetaceans and even-toed ungulates. While this might be a practical consideration based on material they had for a book, it is logical (ungulates have hooves) and the book is probably the most authoritative source on ungulates.
The article on even-toed ungulates is problematic in its current form. While the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section deals with the whole order, the rest of the article is exclusively on even-toes ungulates. For instance, the anatomy section doesn't mention cetacean modifications of the limbs. The lifestyle section doesn't mention social interactions among whales or dolphins and marine habitats and distributions aren't covered. Short of a major rewrite, adding material that would be duplicated in Cetacea, the best approach might be to restrict the article to even-toed ungulates sensu Grubb & Groves and create a new article on Artiodactyla or Cetartiodactyla for the clade and order.   Jts1882 | talk  09:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree. An article on the paraphyletic group "even-toed ungulates" and a separate article on the monophyletic group seems to me the best approach. As for titles, there's an argument that for clarity within Wikipedia, we should use "Cetartiodactyla" as the title, while explaining the alternative in the text. This will make the two articles more clearly distinct to non-experts. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a good approach. Plantdrew (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. However, this approach should also mean using "Cetartiodactyla" in the taxoboxes. I see the merits of both sides, there is no right or wrong answer, but we need a consistent approach. Of course, changing it might be a way to get the opponents involved in the discussion.   Jts1882 | talk  19:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing tribes from missing mammals list, not notable enough?

Hi all, recently Kaldari removed a number of redlinked articles on the missing mammal list, in particular those of the higher level taxa (tribes and sub families). See here: [2]. Apart from the fact that the list is a list of missing mammal species so technically tribes or sub families should not be on the list in terms of scope (though can be argued to be put in a separate missing page list), is it fair to say that those missing names are not notable? I am not an expert in taxonomy so I welcome thoughts from the community here. Would they be more satisfactory as redirects for example in to the higher orders? I have no strong views either way, but thought of seeking a broader opinion on the list. I originally repopulated the list with additional species found in User:Ucucha's excellent listing of mammals, and just added the higher levels as I found them when compiling the missing species. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the missing species list is a reasonable list because I believe there was a discussion that concluded that Wikipedia should have articles on all species. So the list of redlinked articles contains articles that should be written. With tribes and subfamilies there is no requirement to have articles on every taxon. Some subfamilies and tribes are rarely used and are better handled in the family or genus (when monotypic) articles (with redirects). Others, especially in large families, are essential to divide material in manageable chunks, but the decision will be on a case by case basis. A list of all tribes and subfamilies might falsely give the impression the articles are needed.   Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
(Sub)tribes and other valid taxa should always be links, red or no. As Jts1882 said, many will not be that significant, and will end up as redirects with {{R from monotypic taxon}} or {{R animal with possibilities}}. But we want all the connections to be there to another article with more information. No one will really go back in all the articles and add links for a subtribe when an article is created, so it's best to redlink them as per WP:REDYES. They may not have enough information to support their own article, but as accepted taxa they are almost assuredly notable. I disagree with Kaldari's removal of all the taxa from the list, as that list is the right starting point to see if a subtribe can support its own article or redirects to the taxonomy section of the family's article. --Nessie (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
One problem is that I don't know of any databases that routinely include tribe/subfamily for mammals (or really any other vertebrates). Tribe/subfamily placement can be difficult to source. Plantdrew (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd Edition

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd Edition, is a reference that is recommended by WikiProject Mammals. You can hold it in your hand. The section Order Carnivora was written by the mammalogist W.C. Wozencraft - he is the author and taxonomic authority of that section of the book. The "Bucknell website" is not printed, is not the reference book recommended by WikiProject Mammals, and offers "information" without a designated author. It has proven itself to be wrong on Canis lupus filchneri - which it did not include - and it has now proven wrong on the Dhole. We have the COL/ITIS reference that was reviewed by Wozencraft in 2015 - there are 7 subspecies of the Dhole in the printed MWS3 and on the ITIS database reviewed by Wozencraft, as opposed to the 3 listed on Bucknell. To assume that the Bucknell website is correct must require a simple proof - who was the taxonomic authority who recently reclassified the Dhole to have only 3 subspecies, and in what way is this secondary source widely accepted?

Additionally, I am concerned that a reliable source has been removed simply because an editor did not like it. On what basis was that removed? William Harristalk 10:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is so much misinformation there that its hard to know where to start.
  • Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3) exists in two forms, the printed book version and the online database. The database has the full title "Wilson & Reeders' Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3)". It is hosted at the home institution of one of the editors of MSW3 and hasn't been taken down by the publisher.
  • My objection was the addition to the project guidelines of a statement that the database version contains errors. We don't know that. We don't know if the book or the database is the most up to date version. All we can say is that there are differences in a neutral manner, which is what my edit did. This is the point I requested a source for, the basis for say the database contains errors.
  • ITIS and COL follow the MSW3 taxonomy and in the case of the dhole they follow the print version. You make the claim that the COL/ITIS reference was reviewed by Wozencraft in 2015. I dispute this, largely on the grounds that Chris Wozencraft died in 2007. But this is irrelevant to the point at issue, a statement in the guidelines that the database contains errors.
Anyway, the project needs to seriously consider moving on from MSW3. The cut-off for primary literature was 17 years ago and can't be considered a reliable reflection of modern mammalian taxonommy. The articles on most mammalian carnivores have moved to newer sources, but not in a uniform and systematic manner.   Jts1882 | talk  13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
You have avoided both of my questions. In particular if as you say the current "ITIS and COL follow the MSW3 taxonomy and in the case of the dhole they follow the print version", why was that reference removed? William Harristalk 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I did answer your questons, at least those relevant to the issue at hand. The taxonomy of the dhole is not an issue here. It's the addition to the project guidelines to say the online database has errors, implying that the book doesn't. You know the latter is not true and have acted according when needed. I put a neutral version to say that there are differences between the print edition and the online version, which is accurate, concise and doesn't require taking a POV.
As for the COL reference, that got dropped when I restored the neutral statement. I didn't add it back because it's not really relevant to the differences between the book and the online database. It certainly can't be used as a reference for implying that the book is error free and all the errors are in the database. COL and ITIS use the print version for the subspecies of dhole, but their spelling of Canis lupus filchneri matches that in the use on the online version.   Jts1882 | talk  15:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
The Buckwell site is clearly an imperfect digitalization of the printed MSW3. I found three types of differences (but there may be more): 1. missing taxa and synonyms; 2. missing information on new combinations regarding species and subspecies names (but not regarding synonyms); 3. missing letters (‘Yiğit’ may become ‘Yi—it’ or ‘Yi?it’, for instance). In case of Cuon alpinus the boldfacing of the first four subspecies was not recognized, so they and their synonyms where assigned as synonyms to the nominate form. In case of Canis lupus filchneri a typo in the printed version (filchnevi) might have caused a problem (or might be pure coincidence). These are just errors; there has been no taxonomic reassessment. -- 2001:16B8:1EC1:CC00:6CDB:64C1:D4A5:46F4 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the online database is the database used to compile the checklist (see here). My guess is this was passed to Johns Hopkins Press and they used it generate the printed book. I suspect that during the editing process they corrected some errors in the database and generated some new ones.
I think you are correct about the missing bold for the dhole subspecies. Curiously there a bolding error for the last 14 wolf subspecies (in the downloadable CSV) but this error doesn't appear in the website output suggesting that downloadable database and the one used for the website output may not be the same.
Your third type of error looks like a character set mismatch between the database and the HTML page.
There is a fourth difference. The online database has filchneri and laniger as part of chanco, while the book has filchnevi as a subspecies. This seems more like a deliberate change as its hard to see how it happened by accident. The book also has a spurious "[preoccupied]" without a corresponding synonym where laniger appears as a chanco synonym in the database. It looks like laniger was moved without the preoccupied part.
However, as you point out the errors are not just in the online database as the book contains some too. Did they introduce the filchnevi or was that in the database they were given. We can't know, which is why I think our guidelines for the project should neutrally say there are difference between the printed book and online database. Hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles link to the MSW3 website so we should be saying it has errors, impying the book doesn't, when there are instances of the book containing the error. Should we use filchnevi when it is clearly a mistake. In this case the online version is more accurate.   Jts1882 | talk  14:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I consider part of your fourth difference to be a variation of my first difference: The subspecies filchneri/filchnevi disappears and the name only remains as a synonym of another form. The same thing happened with the subspecies of Cuon alpinus. The difference is, that someone corrected the name in the process. It is correct in the index of the printed version, which may have helped. The three differences I mentioned are very common or even systemic. They occurred right from the start, when the site (or rather its predecessor) was launched in 2007/2008(?). I first noticed these differences in the chapter on muroid rodents and asked someone at Bucknell about it. The answer wasn’t very specific, but I was told that the database was indeed known to have problems. Later I found the same differences in other chapters. I have not been keeping track of it, but I don’t have the impression that any of the problems of the Bucknell database have been fixed since then.
What you write about the ‘[preoccupied]’ seems intriguing and on its own certainly supports the view that the database may be based on an older version of the project. Whatever, according to the website itself the database is supposed to mirror the printed version (The citation for this work is: Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp.), although it obviously does not perfectly do so. I think that it’s fine to link to the database from within Wikipedia. But I also think it should rather not be used as a reference (and certainly not with the citation suggested by the website itself). Scientific literature hardly cites the website as a reference; it’s almost always the book. We should do the same. Difference number two (new combinations) is reason enough to almost always check other sources. -- 2001:16B8:1EC1:CC00:6CDB:64C1:D4A5:46F4 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

JTS, the flow of your thinking appears to be this:

  • Mammal Species of the World third edition was published by John Hopkins University Press in 2005 and was edited by Wilson and Reeder (note that they wrote none of it, it was compiled by them from material supplied by subject matter experts e.g. Wozencraft on Carnivora)
  • Reeder works at Bucknell University (currently)
  • Bucknell University hosts a website, on which one webpage purports to represent MSW3. A search facility is provided on that page which delivers taxonomic information (no doubt the search facility is accessing a database; the veracity of what this search facility is able to deliver from that database is questionable, apart from the data integrity of the underlying database itself. I note that Bucknell University did not publish MSW3, John Hopkins University Press did.)
  • "I think the online database is the database used to compile the checklist (see here). My guess is this was passed to Johns Hopkins Press and they used it generate the printed book. I suspect that during the editing process they corrected some errors in the database and generated some new ones"
  • Which implies that there exists two copies of Mammal Species of the World 2005, and that "You cannot say whether the printed book (which can't be corrected) or the online database (which can) is the correct version" (This almost hints as if Professor Reeder spends her days at Bucknell trawling through the system fixing up minor errors that the subject matter experts may had made, and that the online version is the most up-to-date)

And you see no possibility of error in this logic? William Harristalk 21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That is an absurd interpretation of my position. But you are right in that I don't think a website claiming to be the online version of MSW3 being hosted by the institution where one of the editors works is purely a coincidence.   Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the ASM Mammal Diversity Database is a great resource given the datedness of MSW3. It's related to this 2018 publication, so much more current. I think MSW3 is too dated to be considered our critical taxonomic reference text (many species have been described since 2005!) In my judgment, ASM is the best alternative. Enwebb (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it the best available, although with caveats. They haven't made any visible progress since late 2017 and it appears that they lost control of the website for a while. They also say they are planning to convert it to some graphical output, which seems ambitious when progress on a relatively simple version is so slow. But I have doubts about whether MSW4 will ever be published.
Incidentally, I did find a book that has a listing of mammal orders and families that they claim is the preliminary classification being used for MSW4. It largely follows recent phylogenetic groupings. It finally drops order Cetacea, but is still keeps Soricomrpha and Erinaceomorpha. I think we could consider this as a source to use for the higher classification of mammals, perhaps jointly with the ASM. It's published and should be close to MSW4 if it is ever published.   Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
I do not see it as an absurd interpretation of your position because what was outside of the brackets was using your own words. (What was inside the brackets was my commentary.) By what process of logic do you believe that you have inferred that there are two versions of MSW3? You had to have arrived at this position somehow.
  • The published MSW3 consists of 1,600 pages. Nobody is challenging its taxonomic accuracy but you. The only error discovered in the printed MSW3 was one letter in one word (filchneri spelt filchnevi). From this you have inferred that we cannot be sure if it is accurate. Do you believe that you are not over-stating the position? William Harristalk 05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interesated editors can get involved. For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

we are discussing this proposal right now at:

* Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options below. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained edits

An editor (who seems to be using two IPs 95.49.69.190, 95.49.13.66) has been changing animal names in article leads and changing redirect pages without giving any rational. Some of the edits don't seem to be by an English speaker. I have reverted most of them but someone knowledgeable may want to take a look. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of vandalism   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

tasks redirect

when I click the tasks button on the nav box it redirects me to a page with a redirect saying something about bamboos tools? is this correct? shouldn't it be an internal redirect to some wikipedia page? I don't really know how these things work, just kind of learning the ropes to wiki-projects.PrecociousPeach (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

PrecociousPeach, no, it's supposed to be an external link. I fixed it, so it should work now :) Enwebb (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The definite article

And, yes, I do mean that in the sense of grammar.

Someone has updated the page List of endemic species of the British Isles and added an ugly smattering of 'the's in front of common species names that ours is a subspecies of. I'd like to revert, but am unclear on policy.

Thanks—GRM (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic box errors for at Achaenodon and Helohyidae

Hi, as an AfC reviewer for Helohyidae I am asking for help on {{Automatic taxobox}} missing taxonomy template errors at Achaenodon and Helohyidae. It would be of great help for myself and DinosaursRoar, the creator of the articles to make them error free. Thank you. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It's throwing up the error message because the templates for those two taxa don't exist. Hit the "fix" button and follow the instructions, and that should be it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77, Thank you ~ Amkgp 💬 05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Strange language stuff

There is some very strange native language stuff going on at the article List of mammals of Kerala. A number of pictures have been added, as have the names in what I guess is the local alphabet. The table of contents has become very confusing. Could someone more knowledgeable about policy take a look at the article?--SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much the addition of the local language but that nearly all the text of the article is in headers, with only pictures in the sections. This predates the addition of local languages (see here). It seems to me that the species shouldn't be in headers so the TOC only shows down to genera (is there a magic word solution?). I'm not sure how to handle this as its a change to the whole article and the way its been developed, not just a matter of recent changes. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I've limited the TOC to four levels, so the species aren't included, with {{TOC limit|4}} and left a note on the talk page. I think this makes it easier to see what is in the article, but we'll see if others agree. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment in this WikiProject

If you are interested, please see Talk:Bengal tiger/Archive 1#Request for comment on the first sentence of articles about subpopulations. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ASM Mammal Diversity Database

Progress on this new ASM mammal database has been slow and the online version 1 hasn't been updated in a while. However they are developing a new version which can be accessed on github. It's clearly a work in progress, but there have been substantial changes in the last week, which is encouraging.

The link is https://mammaldiversity.github.io/taxa.html. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice! I was hoping they would keep up the database. I might download it later to see if I can update the missing species list for this WikiProject. Enwebb (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Mammals of New Guinea 1995, Tim Flannery

Anyone have access to this book? Interlibrary loans are no longer happening where I live. I'll try resource request next, but figured I'd ask here first. Enwebb (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have it! Let me know what you need to know from it. Ucucha (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Ucucha, great! I'm working on the article for great flying fox (Pteropus neohibernicus) and it looks like the pages I would want are 376-377. Enwebb (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Could you email me on Special:EmailUser/Ucucha? I don't have a scanner or copier so I'll have to send some smartphone pictures, but hopefully that will be readable enough. Ucucha (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Cameroon clawless otter

Two issues. This seems to be generally recognised as a species in its own right, rather than a subspecies of African clawless otter (IUCN redlist, IUCN Otter SG, ASM-MDD), while MSW3 and ITIS (following MSW3) has it as subspecies. I've added a comment that it is sometimes recognised as a species, but I think the taxobox should reflect the change.

The second issue is that the primary name seems to be Congo clawless otter in all the references (the IUCN lists Cameroon clawless otter as one of several alternatives) so a page move seems appropriate. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur : lets use Congo clawless otter as common name for this species in line with post-2000 articles in the Bulletin of the Otter SG and in 2015 RL assessment. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
A related issue is that the article on the Asian small-clawed otter uses the scientific name Amblonyx cinerea. This was changed by this edit, which gives a reference for the phylogenetic relationship that suggests a change is necessary, but not a source for the change been implemented. The IUCN and ASM-MDD continue to use Aonyx cinerea. So while I agree a taxonomic change is needed (the phylogeny was confirmed in Law et al, 2018), we must follow sources. The taxonomic change made also seems speculative as expanding Aonyx to include Lutragale is an alternative. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Aonyx cinereus is used in ALL articles about the species in the Bulletin of the Otter SG and in mooost articles published elsewhere post-2000, with only very very few exceptions. In view of the IUCN RL assessors also using this sci name, I recommend using it here as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
checkY I've swapped Cameroon to Congo. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank-you.
I've revised the pages on the Congo clawless otter and Asian small-clawed otter to reflect the IUCN and ASM position. I've also restored the Aonyx article (from redirect to monotypic genus) and added the three species now recognised. It will be interesting to see what taxonomic revision will eventually be made now there is a second genetic study showing Aonyx non-monophyly. Until then we must follow the sources we have. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The parent clade for Template:Taxonomy/Boreoeutheria needs changing

Template:Taxonomy/Boreoeutheria currently lists the parent clade of Boreoeutheria as Exafroplacentalia, the proposed clade including Boreoeutheria and Xenarthra to the exclusion of Afrotheria. However, the interrelationships between the three widely accepted major placentalian clades (Boreoeutheria, Afrotheria and Xenarthra) are still controversial, right? So why is one hypothesis being favoured here? It seems obvious to me that this parent clade needs changing.

Over a year ago, I tried chainging Boreoeutheria's listed parent clade from Exafroplacentalia to Placentalia, to avoid favouring any of the three hypotheses (i.e. Exafroplacentalia, Atlantogenata and Epitheria). However, I couldn't change Boreoeutheria's myself as it was protected (it still is). I was however able to change Template:Taxonomy/Xenarthra's parent clade from Exafroplacentalia to Placentalia, which nobody appears to have had any contention with. This does mean however that there is currently an inconsistency between the two that needs addressing. I thereby request for any opinions on what the listed parent clades should be. Once a consensus is obtained, we will have the impetus to make the according changes. Incidentally, Template:Taxonomy/Afrotheria's parent clade is currently listed as Placentalia, which I believe should probably remain.

There is potentially something else to consider though. The Eutheria and Boreoeutheria pages currently claim that Atlantogenata (Xenarthra + Afrotheria) is actually the weakly favoured hypothesis of major placentalian relationships. In that case, it would be possible to argue that the parent clades of all three major clades should reflect this. However, not only is this favouring apparently "weak", but the cited papers are a few years old now so the current state of placentalian taxonomy could be quite different by now. Could anyone with more knowledge shed some light?

At any rate, this claim of a weakly favoured hypothesis and the listed parent clade of Boreoeutheria contradict each other, so something needs changing. Personally, I think that the parent clade of Boreoeutheria should be changed to Placentalia, and that Xenarthra and Afrotheria should also retain Placentalia as the listed parent clade. But perhaps the current situation is not as contentious nowadays as Wikipedia generally seems to make out? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. As soon as I read your first sentence I was thinking Placentia is the best choice. As far as I can tell Atlantagenata and Exafroplacentia seem more favoured now than Epitheria, but there is not clear favourite and we don't have a favoured supraordinal mammalian taxonomy. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I've changed it and added a comment that any proposed change should be discussed at this talk page. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I was not surprised to find that User:Awesome 210 was responsible for changing the parent from Epitheria to Exafroplacentalia (I don't know whether Epitheria is appropriate). I've been meaning to bring up this user's (and User:Awesome209) edits to taxonomy templates. They all should be reviewed by somebody who has a better knowledge of animal phylogeny than me. They set various parents that represent poorly supported hypotheses.
What tipped me off to problems with Awesome's edits was noticing Template:Taxonomy/Tactopoda as the parent to Arthropoda. Onychophora, Arthropoda and Tardigrada form Panarthropoda, which I gather is fairly well supported (or at least better supported than any finer resolution of the relationship between these 3 phyla). Tactopoda represents tardigrades+arthropods as sister to onychophorans. The competing hypothesis has arthropods+onychophorans sister to tardigrades. A trickle down effect from Awesome's promotion of Tactopoda is that another editor was pushing to change "Arthropoda" to "Euarthropoda" in taxoboxes, which was in place for more than a year. Plantdrew (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Echidna

Can someone please check the recent IP edits. Different IPs are adding the same stuff and only someone familiar with the topic would know if it is possibly reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism to me. S/he says echinus is Latin for hedgehog but that's actually Ancient Greek (and it should be echinos), and s/he puts links to random extinct monotreme groups with "platypus/echidna-like ancestors"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no idea how these got on my watchlist, but please also check the activity at Short-beaked echidna. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_11&oldid=1073198700"