Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! I am amazed at the depth of coverage of the mammals! I strongly hope no-one is offended by the use of the term "mixed quality" whilst constructing this list - I meant that in a very positive sense - many areas the coverage is excellent, in the other areas it is still rather good! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Rhinograde (extinct) on the French wiki. Marc Venot 23:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

My main criticism with the main page is to be sure to list groups that are monophyletic. Artiodactyla is not monophyletic and has been combined with Cetacea in Cetartiodactyla. Also what about including supra"ordinal" groupings such as Theria or Euarchontoglires. Simpson is about a half a century old. MikeMcG

Contents 1 Please think about non-specialist readers 2 Article verification request 3 Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed 3.1 Rodents 3.2 Marsupials 4 Open tasks list 5 Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 6 Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials 7 Recent addition at Camelids 8 About a billion years after everyone else... 9 Right whale 10 Platypus 11 Pet skunk 12 Species check 13 Project directory 14 Wildlife Barnstar 15 Stablepedia 16 Capitalization 17 Proposed Veterinary medicine project 18 Topic:Paleontology 19 Red Panda Attention 20 Wikipedia Day Awards 21 Possible re-activation of project? 22 Cat FAR 23 List of North American Mammals 24 Fauna of Scotland 25 Category disagreement 26 Capitalization, pt2 27 Image of a horse with covered face 27.1 dog with bandaged foot 28 Information unrepresentative of geographic range 29 Standardization of Species Listings 30 Guinea pig

[edit] Please think about non-specialist readers

The categorisation system is all very well, but surely more priority should be given to useabilty. Is the set of subcategories on the mammals page more likely to excite or suppress a child's interest in the subject? Surely the latter. And it will be the same for most adults. I think it would be much better to promote the more familiar second tier categories to make it easier for people to use the menu to learn more about mammals. A disclaimer and link to an article about classification systems could be included at the top of the page. Philip 09:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article verification request

Hystricognathi was created by the account of a known vandal/hoaxster. Verification by experts is necessary. mikka (t)

Well, the format does not conform, but the data appears reasonably correct. I'll take a look at massaging it into better shape. - UtherSRG 22:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is a legitimate entry as far as the subject is concerned. TeamZissou 09:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed

Ok, so it's only a few short months until this is published. I'd like to get a bunch of folks who are willing to update the mammal articles here on (en) Wikipedia and on Wikispecies to conform with MSW3. We should probably do this in some orderly fashion such as, well... I can't resist... by the various mammalian orders. Of course, the articles between Class Mammalia and the various orders will also need to be addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

We must get User:Ucucha involved in this. He is well up to speed on where MSW3 is already out-of-date and has proved a great source of information for me re Mammmalia. Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Stanskis here - trying to be really, really constructive and helpful, especially for the long term. Please consider:

1) should we keep MSW information/data in the current Wikipages, ie from the 'old' edition of MSW. [Good idea, if practicable], AND

2) in addition to 1), should we create a new set of 'new' pages based on the new edition of MSW (and the Wikipages from 1)), as a complete and final package. ([Good idea.] OR:

3) are we planning to do both 1) and 2). [Good idea, if this our role] OR:

4) as for 2), but then keep updating from other sources so as to have pages that are fully up to date. [This may seem easiest and the most obvious for Wikipedians, but, selection of references for updating would need policy agreements (Having Wikipedians assimilate all possible new info would not end up being worthwhile Taxonomy (Wheeler, 2004).). It would beg the such questions as, 'What is our function, our aim, our purpose, who are our clients, ...?'] [So, not easy):

So, Big difference! Big decisions! This is a very Big Issue, and not just for us, but for Science!

See the revolutionary paper (online): Wheeler, Q.D. 2004 "Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny": 'Phil.Trans. Roy. Soc. London', in the Series "Taxonomy for the Twenty-first Century".

The choice should hinge on the Wikipedian and scientific requirement for quality referencing. Taxonomy has been badly let down in recent decades in this area, especially by molecular taxonomists (Wheeler, 2004). DNA results, Cladistics, etc, and Web-site publishing, tend to increase the number of Classifications together with the number of unresolved problems; they are a moving target - ephemeral. They weaken Taxonomy. In general, much (perhaps most) really up-to-date information is not likely to last. Use it, quote the reference, and in short time, users may be unable to trace the source. Even the best, frequently-updated websites create similar problems - untraceable accountability.

Ideal reference sources are hard-copy, published documents available from libraries (and online), etc. Web sites need to find ways to deliver good Taxonomy. A set of pages that faithfully follows the Taxonomy in one edition of MSW will be a top-class resource, even as it becomes 'out of date'. (In Taxonomy, 'old' frequently means extra valuable, often irreplaceable. Ten years from now, true/pure information from MSW3 will remain valid, dependable and useful.] [Think of "Editions" as steps of a ladder - get on to one step, and advancing is easy; getting on the right step can be critical.] Can Wikimedia provide the Ladder? Can we find a formula to create a series of traces on Wikimedia that links MSW editons? This could be a valuable innovation.

Wheeler has alerted all of Science to the urgent need for a renaissance in Taxonomy, he asks, "Or will we sell out centuries of scholarship for short-term technical self-aggrandizement?" (p. 581). [I think he is referring to quick-and-easy scientific papers.] 203.167.171.130 06:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 08:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think, in any case, that Wikipedia should be up-to-date. Always. But you're right - partly. We don't need to incorporate all molecular phylogenies immediately; there are too many of them. Having separate sets of pages would only be confusing.

But the number of needed updates for MSW 3 would not be so large as some people apparently think. Remember that it's only a compilation which should reflect the consensus of mammalogists, a consensus that has been developed since 1993. We don't need to update anything at all for the Notoryctemorphia. The list for the monotremate genus Zaglossus will probably be very different from the 1993 version - but it won't be very difficult to take it from Flannery & Groves's revision of the genus. I heard some rumours that the shrew chapter will be very different from the 1993 one. But, on the other hand, the chapters on bats and rodents won't change much except for compilation of recent works. Groves' primate chapter will be very similar to Primate Taxonomy, I think.

I understood that MSW 3 should have been published in 2003, and it was only due to publication delays that it is published now (November, probably), so it's already out-of-date. Ucucha|... 08:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Groves' work in MSW3 follows his work in PT, although he does redact a bit as appropriate to follow papers he and others published after PT. But yes, MSW will of course be a bit out of date, as even last month there were two new species of lemurs described. I think Wikipedia should be as up to date as reasonably possible, using reliable resources (such as MSW3) as a basis, and getting updates from solid publications (such as the one decribing the new lemurs). But even as some of MSW3 will have no changes from MSW2, we should go through the entirety of Mammalia to verify what we do have and what we don't have, creating appropriate links to encourage the creation of new articles (or writing them ourselves), updating the information in existing and correct articles, etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

On new species, see nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2005. It's in Dutch, but the list will be clear. New mammal species aren't rare. Ucucha|... 12:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Stanskis is making a good point here. One of the roles of an encyclopedia is to document the history of a subject. Old ideas are valuable, interesting, and encyclopedic. If we are really writing "for the ages" then we ought to be able to describe multiple taxonomies. Just as MSW2 was succeeded by MSW3, so there will at some point be MSW4 and many other classifications. Stanskis is arguing that we ought to think about how to preserve the older information, not just deleting it in the never-ending race to be "up to date".

Some particular things that we ought to do:

• Give print references for classifications.
• Give the history of classification. (See for example the section in Ape that gives classification at various points in time. This is important to understand older publications.)
• When a taxon is no longer used in the "official" Wikipedia taxonomy — or is too new or uncertain to be included — make an article, or at least a section in an article. For example Simia for an old, unused taxon; Myliobatiformes for a taxon not (yet) used in Wikipedia.

Gdr 12:54:04, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

While I like what was done at ape, and I encourage it to be done elsewhere as well, it's not what I will be focussing my efforts on. The "old information" can be found in the history of the articles. Bringing it forward to show the change in time is good. I, however, will be updating articles to be current. I will attempt to keep some of the historical changes as I can, but I'm more interested in being up-to-date than in showing changes over time. Both are valuable, but it doens't mean we all have to make both our focus. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can I encourage you to at least leave a note in articles saying something like: "In MSW2 Foo was placed in the family Fooidae but in MSW3 Fooidae was combined with Baridae." I'm sure you've often seen queries from readers along the lines of "isn't X in Y" where it turns out that Y was a taxon in an older taxonomy. Even a brief note will help un-confuse those readers. Gdr 13:53:56, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

When it's simple, yes. Often that confusion comes from several years out-of-date although recently printed textbooks. I'm in a discussion with two editors who just moved about the various Hominoidea articles because their 2003 textbook had 15-20 year-old information. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why the historical information is so important! If a brief note doesn't suffice to explain the issue, then we really need an article, or a longer section, on the subject. Gdr 14:07:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Great team effort! Taxonomists, in Review articles and Monographs, have a shorthand way of summarising taxonomic histories: they list Synonyms in time sequence, each use of a formal name along with its reference (Author, date). This is effective, but too intense for us. What is proposed above is ideal.

One point: What does "up-to-date" mean? What level is appropriate? Choose from:

a) 0-1 years (approx.): Cutting edge results in publications &/or online. Eg, "I've checked a collection and found this new taxon - A-us"

b) 1-5 yrs: First review article. Eg, "I've checked out several collections and literature and accept A-us as valid."

c) 2-10+ yrs: Revisions & Monographs of a superior Taxon. Eg, "A re-classification of the Family B-ae, including A-us, ..."

We are in home territory as long as we don't make research-level decisions, eg to accept a), thus becoming a "first reviewer", b). Molecular phylogenies are a special case of a), but Wheeler (2004)(Refn. above) gives abundant reasoning for dealing with these as Ucucla suggests. (Thanks all for distilling my ramblings.) Stanskis 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rodents

I finally got my copy of MSW3. I've tried to start a discussion to coordinate rodent edits at Talk:Rodent. Was there any sort of consensus here about an overall strategy? I suspect group specific approaches are best below the order level. --Aranae 07:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsupials

I recently got mine, too. I'm now going through it from start to finish to update our articles. In discussion with User:Ucucha on his talk page, I found that the Ameridelphia/Australidelphia super- (or magn-)orders may be broken, with one of the ameridelph orders (Paucituberculata) may be more closely related to the australimorphs. What should be done? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials

I propose we focus on Placental mammels and leave Marsupials and Monotremes to a sister project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. What does everyone think? Enlil Ninlil 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent addition at Camelids

I originally sent this to User:Jpbrenna, but thought maybe I oughtta post it here too...

Would you mind looking at this edit and salvaging anything worthwhile from it? I'm tempted to just remove it to TALK until (a) someone who -> (b) knows something about the subject matter can make heads or tails of it. If your knowledge of camelids is insufficient, I'm hoping you'll know someone who knows more about them to whom you can forward this information. Thanks, Tomer^talk 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About a billion years after everyone else...

My beautiful copy of MSW3 has arrived. So I am on-hand to look things up if needed. I wonder (this is probably a ToL thing) if we should add what resources we have access to next to our names on the contributor list. Might be useful for others. Pcb21 Pete 10:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Right whale

Right whale is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus

Platypus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pet skunk

Pet skunk is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Species check

Can someone check for the existence of Vandeleuria elliotti (not sure of spelling). Shyamal 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can check here. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time of it's publication, MSW 3 only lists three species of Vandeleuria:

• Vandeleuria nilagirica
• Vandeleuria nolthenii
• Vandeleuria oleracea

However, that doesn't mean a new species hasn't been discovered since 2003, or the species name you are asking about may be a junior synonym for one of the others. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Shyamal 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Capitalization

What is the rule for capitalizing the common names of mammals in article text? Since the MOS eventually leads you here, it would be helpful to make a note of that somewhere on the project page. Nareek 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy has been the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds - MPF 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Although many bird societies have made a formal adoption of capitalization for common names, mammal societies have not and mammal journals vary among and within journals. The formal rule for capitalization of mammal common names is that there isn't a formal rule (same goes for TOL in general). Use either capital of lowercase, but make sure appropriate redirects exist. --Aranae 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look right to me. We don't capitalize human or rainbow trout or dog, so why others? Tyrannosaurus uses it, but that's a scientific name, rather than a common one. It seems like some editors enforce it because they like it, hence all the wolf articles, but it's very inconsistent and looks weird for common words. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You eyes will adjust. The rationale at WP:BIRD is sound and clarifies what is being discussed in some cases. "Common Ravens" and "common ravens" talk about two different kinds of groups, and that is distinguished via the capitalization. One is talking about a group of animals all belonging to the same species, the other is talking about somewhat related birds that are common. Likewise, the word "dire" has meaning all on its own, and so "dire wolf" means something other than just the species, while "Dire Wolf" refers specifically to the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bird journals can capitalize bird names because birds are what they're interested in. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and has to have a rule that works generally.

Do we really want a rule that makes us capitalize Indian Elephant (which is a species) and not African elephant (which is not)? Blue Whale but not killer whale? Black Bear but not grizzly bear? I'm doing these from memory, which may be faulty--if we were had this rule, I would have to look up each of these animals to make sure I'm not mixing up the name of a species with the name of a group of species with the name of a subspecies. And editors would have to do this all the time. This does not seem worth it. Nareek 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a sometime birder with much broader interest in natural history (and, incidentally, an editor to boot!), I have no problem with capitalizing species names in English. But it would help to have a WP ruling and strict guidelines to follow. For example, I'd say we capitalize species and lower taxa (e.g. subspecies), but try to avoid it for "above-species" taxa (though not capitalizing African Elephant would seem pedantic!).

Similar issue with italics, which should be restricted to genera and species names, but how many use them for above-species taxa?--GRM 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

African elephant is correct, as it is the common name for the genus of the African Forest Elephant and the African Bush Elephant. We've tried several times to reach consensus on capitalization across all of ToL. The final decision was to leave it up to the various projects within ToL. Cephalopods, Cetaceans, Marsupials/Monotremes and Primates all follow the Bird standard. Fish follows the opposite. Mammal is a bit of a hodge podge since there are many projects underneath, and still we don't have full coverage of species without jumping up here again. Obviously, I fall in the Bird/Primate camp. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was ample consensus about italics for genera and species, though.--GRM 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with italics tends to be more of a problem in botany, but I am not talking from a WP perspective -- I haven't looked at many plant-type entries in WP :-) --GRM 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a specialized reference work focusing on mammals or on natural history, but a general work relating to all fields of knowledge. Names of animals are not confined to articles about animals, but can occur in many different contexts throughout wikipedia. There's no reason, over the course of the entire encyclopedia, to call particular attention to the common names of animals than to the common names of rocks, parts of the body, literary forms, musical instruments, kinds of tools--you name it. We need a rule that can be applied by all editors of all articles to every type of object--and the good old rule that you capitalize proper nouns and lower-case common nouns would seem to fit the ticket.

I gotta say, avoiding confusing phrases like "there are several common starlings" and "that sure is a dire wolf" does not seem too tough. More difficult is asking every Wikipedia article to check whether the common name of an animal refers to a species, a subspecies or a group of species before they know how to capitalize. And any rule that results in "African elephant" but "Indian Elephant" is fatally flawed, in my opinion. Nareek 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely there can be simple differentiation between natural history pages and general pages...? I would see no problem in the "zoologists" and others among us who work on the mammal pages using the "birders' rules" of capitalization on the mammal-specific pages, while pages on, say, travels in India refer to "Asiatic elephants", "tigers" and "black kites"--GRM 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that differentiation would be that simple, actually. If you go to a popular mammal species--I used Gray wolf as a test--you'll find that the page links to articles on a wide variety of topics, relating to biology, geography, history, popular culture and on and on--animals are part of our world and they get talked about a lot in many different ways. I would be hard pressed to define which of these articles are "natural history" and which are not--and I doubt that my definition would be the same as every other Wikipedia editor.

More generally, the point of having a style is to maintain consistency over an entire work. If we italicize the names of novels in Wikipedia articles in general, we shouldn't have them in all caps in articles specifically about literature--assuming we could define what those were. This is for the convenience of Wikipedia editors and users alike. Nareek 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've come here because of a revert war with the Florida panther. Every scholarly or management source out there says Florida panther, not Florida Panther. It's annoying to have people revert without engaging in discussion. I can understand some reasoning for changing to a capitalization rule, but it's also weird to go against convention. I find it a little annoying that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) says that "In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms," and then says that Mammals are generally capitalized. There isn't general consensus for mammals, but to the extent that there is, it leans towards lower-case. Pigkeeper 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic:Paleontology

Hello at Wikiversity there is a disipline in development on palaeontology that needs help. The courses could help with te development of articles on wikipedia so it is a long term program. Interested people can go to this URL: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Paleontology#Content_summary Thanks for reading Enlil Ninlil 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Panda Attention

I have a question. Can someone please help me to make the article Red Panda better? I am struggleing with FAs. Daniel10 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, I'm not quite sure what the arguments were to reject it but it needs to be expanded quite a bit. Compare it to the content list in the Giant Panda article. I can help get the taxonomy classification straight. It needs a good conservation status section since its an endangered species. We have to look into the history, geographic distribution, behavior, diet, human interaction and reproduction, for starters. Valich 08:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible re-activation of project?

Most of the families and orders of mammals do not currently have any sort of supervising project. Would the members of this project be interested in having it actively involved in those articles relating to mammals which are not currently covered by other projects? Badbilltucker 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been slowly updating all of the mammal taxa articles in accordance with MSW3.I'm currently working on Carnivora/Feliformia. Perhaps I should list what I've done, but that would be for a later time when I'm at home. For now, you can see my most recent request for input at talk:Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cat FAR

Cat has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of North American Mammals

I just created a list (I hope pretty comprehensive) of List of North American mammals. Any input would be welcome......Pmeleski 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of Scotland

Similarly, input from those interested in the mammals of the Palearctic is most welcome on this new article. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category disagreement

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Species_of_Wolf - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization, pt2

I've just had a debate about this, and notice our pages are very inconsistent regarding upper and lower case for mammals.

For

• A species name is a proper noun and should be capitalized.
• Upper case has been decided on for birds and other TOL subjects.
• There is a comprehension issue: if I write "spotted deer" I could be talking about the species or a deer which happens to have spots. Better to capitalize with the species.

Against

• Academic sources do not capitalize with mammals. This varies between taxa, I'm sure, but that's what I've seen.
• General usage does not employ upper case either, and the more familiar the species the less upper case is likely to be used (you'll rarely see lion capitalized and you'll never see it with dog and cat).
• The terms are not always going to be proper nouns, which will create confusion. In "the mother tiger groomed her cub", tiger is actually a common noun and should not be capitalized.

Thoughts? Marskell 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Species names should be capitalized. The rationale I use to support this can be found at WP:BIRD. Further more, *some* academic sources use capitalization to denote a species common name; Others use All caps and others use a different font to denote species. There is no One True Path in this regard. We should not follow common usage, for common usage will have us jump off the cliff, to paraphrase the old adage. As an encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to note what is common, but do what is right. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which *some*? The IUCN doesn't capitalize [1][2] and it's one of our core sources. Marskell 12:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, which is the primary source for mammal taxonomy and common names. And the IUCN redlist uses ALL CAPS in its upper portion and sentence case in text, another instance of mixed usage. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP:FISH has decided on sentence case, so there's no immediate need to fall in with what WP:BIRD decided. While uppercase could help distinguish between adjectives and names (common seals versus Common Seals), I'm not sure that is ever really a problem (rewording to make it clear is normally an easy task) and it can equally be confusing where the common family and species names are the same: platypuses exist in the fossil record so we refer to "platypuses" there, but "Platypuses" when we talk about the extant species, which means we can end up with people helpfully "correcting" the capitalisation. Yomangani^talk 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And how are those issue you raise any different for mammals than they are for birds? And in the Fish discussion, it was brought up that experts in the field are considering moving to capitalization instead of sentence case. WP:FISH is waiting for that to happen. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They aren't any different (except perhaps that birds have more of the descriptive type common names to distinguish between all the little brown jobs), but claiming that mammals should be capitalised because birds are presupposes that the decision WP:BIRD took is valid for the rest of the animal kingdom. I was attempting to point out some drawbacks to the assumption that capitalising species names automatically provides clarity. With regard to WP:FISH, icthyologists are indeed considering a change and very rightly the project is waiting to see if that happens, rather than making changes based on the rules of a different project. Let's not assume that WP:BIRD's naming rules form any more of a binding precedent for rendering the common names of mammals than those of WP:FISH. Yomangani^talk 16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference here is that ichthyologists are actively interested and currently insist on sentence case, while mammalian zoologists don't care one bit. There's nothing for us to wait on, so we can go ahead and use what makes sense to us. And there are plenty of descriptive names amongst the mammals where there is plenty of speciation within families and genera; large animals tend to have only small degrees of speciation, while smaller ones speciate to fill each nuance of a niche. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but the assumption that capitalisation is "what makes sense to us" is a leap. I'm not decided one way or the other, I'd just like to see some agreement on the matter before we start changing all the articles. I know this has come to dead-end several times already, but making unilateral changes to a personal preference doesn't seem to be a solution. Let's carve it in (somewhat crumbly) stone on the project page before any retroactive "fixing" takes place.

Capitalisation has a lot going for it, but I find the capitalisation/non-capitalisation idioms baffle most people who aren't actively editing zoology articles, which is perhaps something to be said for sentence case, since we should be writing for the general reader, not a zoologist. If the general reader expects to see it in sentence case that's what we should give them, but, to be honest, I expect the vast majority probably don't notice or care. Once reading the article the capitalisation tends to be neither here nor there on the subject species, and any other species should be wikilinked rendering the need to disambiguate with capitals a moot point (off-line versions excluded) except in the case when you are talking about a general group which can be made clear in context. The 12 to 4 lowercase to uppercase in the source list at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) still bothers me too. (By the way, I wasn't saying there aren't a lot of descriptive common names among the mammals, just that they are probably more common among birds). Yomangani^talk 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means a zoologist, but I recently had a bash at the aforementioned Fauna of Scotland article. Lacking any previous experience I came across this very debate whilst drafting the article. Clearly, species names had to be used and something had to be capitalised and or I was running the risk of looking utterly amateurish. It seemed easiest to stick with WP:BIRD usage and ignore possible complaints from fish fanciers as I wanted the article to have internal consistency. At first it seemed ridiculous - after all, who had ever heard of a European Rabbit or a Eurasian Badger? However, for what it's worth I actually came to find such a system useful. There really are occasions when it is helpful to refer to lemmings or dolphins in general and make it clear that one is not referring to a specific species by using lower case. It doesn't matter to me a great deal, (I doubt I will be writing more fauna articles) but I believe it would be helpful to have a system that is both used across all species and which includes a simple convention for distinguishing between common names and definite species. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As someone who started writing bird species names in sentence case and quickly reverted to initial capitals, and carried that preference over to all other animal species, I add my vote to the for side. Thanks—GRM 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not essentially for or against. I thought we might have a wiki-type compromise, such as capitals for compounds. But this seemed silly ("Clouded leopard" and "leopard"?). No, it really should be all of one or all of the other.

I still lean, at this point, to no caps because, as I've just mentioned to Uther, there is no compromise over information involved. It makes no difference if we say "dolphin" or "Dolphin", and if there is no difference we should describe things as our sources describe them and as native speakers describe them. Wiki isn't in the business of making fundamental decisions on nomenclature. A minor bit of syntax work can take care of any potential ambiguity. Marskell 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think every TOL page is on a slow cycle of being reverted back and forth between capital and lowercase. Any article will last about 8 months in its current state before someone switches it to the other case based solely on personal opinion. I personally don't care which case it is at and philosophically agree with our current policy of letting individual editors decide as there is no right answer. The thing that irritates me most is that about 3/4 of the editors that move a page on the basis of personal opinion don't bother to clean up the double redirects. The simplest solution is to move it back, but that can only be done by an admin because a redirect is sitting on the original site. I think this problem tends to be most common among non-zoology admins (since there's usually a redirect at the new location) who happened to randomly come upon a TOL page and see species names as not being proper names. As far as I'm concerned, move things back and forth as you will, but only if you clean up after yourself (Note: not directed at UtherSRG who does clean up). I'd love to know a way to fix this simply and quickly. --Aranae 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One band-aid for the moment would be "respect the initial or primary author" as the rule and then broadcast this widely. Marskell 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come into the capitalization topic by way of the cheetah article. It was up-capped on 1/24/07 (after close to 5 years being lowercase) as a part of a current sweep some editors have undertaken to conform mammals with WP:BIRD and MSW3 (seems to be primarily by UtherSRG). Like others have pointed out, on its face the WP:BIRD doesn't make sense in justifying style decisions for mammals, and also WP:BIRD is draft anyhow. Capitalization of mammals like cheetahs isn't supported by any style guides, dictionaries, or searches of papers written by professional biologists. But the fallback response has been that MSW3 is the rationale. I looked that up, and I'm sorry, but I found that didn't pan out either. A cross-post from the cheetah discussion page:

I've returned the article to have the lowercase form of "cheetah" for the following reasons:

• The consensus guideline on style, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, refers wikipedia editors to authoritative sources such as Chicago Manual of Style to resolve questions like this. CMoS does address this topic in section 8.136: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127... "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives" (eg "Rocky Mountain sheep"). There isn't a wikipedia guideline to supplant it on this topic.
• Webster's dictionary - lowercase
• Oxford dictionary - lowercase
• Encyclopedia Britannica - lowercase
• Associated Press Stylebook - lowercase
• Walker's Mammals of the World 6th edition -- "the most comprehensive -- the pre-eminent -- reference work on mammals" doesn't capitalize cheetah or other fauna. MSW3 recognizes and cites WMotW in its introduction.

And finally, and most surprisingly!, MSW3 itself doesn't actually support the uppercase style. It uses the lowercase form cheetah in its commentary. See pg 532, "Family Felidae" comments: "Most studies agree on the clear separation of the "big cats" (i.e., Panthera, Neofelis, Uncia) from the remainder. However, within the remaining group, there does not appear to be a clear consensus. Even the cheetah's (Acinonyx) traditional position has been called into question (Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Mattern and McLennan, 2000)."

For those who haven't seen MSW3 before, it's an academic compendium of taxonomic information and uses a highly hierarchal and formalized structure for presenting its information. It doesn't discuss its topics or write about them in the way an article or book would. For each species, there are standard sections including "type species", "synonyms", "common name". The "common name" is presented on a single line for each species in the format: "COMMON NAME: Cheetah." I think it's a misunderstanding of the book to take that style adopted to present its voluminous information as for some reason a style standard for written materials like articles. It's clearly not. MSW3 itself doesn't use the uppercase style when it is discussing topics with regular writing outside of its formalized structure. For another example see the "Wildcat" entry comment on pg 537, where again, like with cheetah, it follows a style consistent with how CMoS would have it, and refers to "European wild cat".

As MSW3 introduction says, "this work is primarily a checklist at the species level". It is most certainly authoritative on names and taxonomy but it's not a style guide. There should be a differentiation between the purpose of MSW3 and its intended, specialized audience and the purpose of this and other mammal articles for general readership! Thanks. Beyazid 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dealing with similar frustration after UtherSRG has changed the Florida panther without any conversation on the discussion page or even justification in the edit summary. Pigkeeper 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

UtherSRG responded to me at Talk:Florida panther and she graciously let things stand for now. I responded with the following, which I think are also relevant here:

while I prefer to follow the usage of scholarly and management sources, I accept that there is a case to be made for capitalization. However, if this decision is made, the naming conventions page should explain that wikipedia is going against the grain in some cases (or is a part of the vanguard, as you might put it). Right now it says academic practice is generally followed, but that wouldn't be the case with cats like the Florida panther, and mammals generally (going by the 12:5 survey of sources). Pigkeeper 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"He". I'm a "he". - UtherSRG (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought. One of the issues is that in the European context at least is that numerous species names include proper nouns and that 'common names' are no longer species names, even although many readers might imagine that a 'rabbit' was a perfectly good one. Compare these lists:

European wild cat, Red squirrel, St Kilda mouse, Northern gannet, Chinese muntjac, Eurasian badger, Atlantic halibut.

wild cat, red squirrel, St Kilda mouse, gannet, Chinese muntjac, badger, halibut.

European Wild Cat, Red Squirrel, St Kilda Mouse, Northern Gannet, Chinese Muntjac, Eurasian Badger, Atlantic Halibut.

The first is sentence case. The second is a list of species as understood by a non-zoologist in Britain. The third you know. The problem is that the first list is confusing to a non-specialist. There are examples above of this elsewhere, so I will list only one. 'European wild cat' could mean different things that the context may or may not clarify, but the capitalised version is obviously a species. My conclusion: why confuse people when you can avoid doing so? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there are limited occasions where using uppercase has the benefit of immediately clarifying that a specific species is being discussed but this isn't as problematic as people make it out to be. In those cases, changes to the wording, or an extra sentence or two, clear the matter up. It is actually not a problem but an advantage because it gives an opportunity to educate the reader, these points of "confusion" would by no means be unique to wikipedia.

The wildcat example is a good one. The article is titled "wildcat", as your average person would expect, and in the first paragraph the context is set perfectly well, informing them that wildcat can mean several subspecies. The design of the article has separate subsections that go on to cover "European wild cat", "African wild cat", and "Asiatic wild cat". There's no confusion. The badger article is another example. Most people from America probably would go to it not realizing about the Eurasian badgers and maybe vice versa with people from Britain not realizing about American badgers. The article educates the reader about these other species.

Style shouldn't draw attention to itself, style should be out of a reader's consciousness. Using uppercase is an oddity that calls attention to itself, it isn't followed by professional writers or biologists, isn't supported by reference authorities on style issues, isn't even used by MSW3 in its commentary. I didn't cherrypick when I was looking into this topic, everything I looked at -- including a whole shelf of books on big cats in the case of cheetah -- confirmed that sentence case and CMoS are appropriate. Marskell had a similar experience with the jaguar references. WP:STYLE and CMoS are consensus guidance for wikipedia articles and CMoS points out that some specialities follow their own conventions (eg, virology, birds) but except for those limited areas sentence case is the norm. Beyazid 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The examples you provide are from species pages where there is perhaps space for 'an extra sentence or two'. My experience is of a general fuana article where there is not. No doubt you are right and sentence case is the norm (for mammals). In which case, I am saying the norm is not especially helpful. Either way, consistency within and across classes would be. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need an extra "sentence or two." You can literally employ one word: "the species European wild cat loves mice." Just as acceptable as "the movie Top Gun is excellent." If "species" is placed before the name it won't be interpreted as plural. Marskell 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that may get a little clunky in a list: "the species European wild cat, the species Eurasian badger, the species jaguar, the species African forest elephant, etc." Of course, in a list like that, it is likely that you'd wikilink them anyway: "European wild cat, Eurasian badger, jaguar, African forest elephant" which solves the problem anyway, as the links colour code the species and a whole article lies behind each link to explain it (or would do if European wild cat hadn't been deleted as a copyvio, but you get the idea). Yomangani^talk 19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few sentences from a well-known article in lower case:

"During the Pleistocene interglacials various arctic animals that are no longer extant occupied Scotland, including the woolly rhinoceros, mammoth, polar bear and lemming. The wild boar and wild ox or urus died out in the subsequent two centuries although the domesticated grice lasted until 1930 in Shetland. Various other schemes have been considered. For example, the owner of the Alladale estate north of Inverness has expressed a desire to re-introduce wolves as part of a safari park." Evidently this should read:

During the Pleistocene interglacials various arctic animals that are no longer extant occupied Scotland, including the .... polar bear and unspecified lemming species. The wild boar and wild ox or urus died out in the subsequent two centuries although the domesticated grice (which isn't a species) lasted until 1930 in Shetland. Various other schemes have been considered. For example, the owner of the Alladale estate north of Inverness has expressed a desire to re-introduce wolves (probably Eurasian wolves, although this is unknown) as part of a safari park."

Comments on said article are welcome. Mine on this topic are (you will be pleased to hear) at an end. If a wiki-wide standard is ever agreed, I'd appreciate hearing about it. We'll meet again..... Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Only "part 2"? ... someone was feeling optimistic when they wrote that (or not aware of the ToL archives ;))! Looking back now, I think it was a mistake to extrapolate at all from the birds project. On balance, the literature is not capitalized. Now personally I think capitalisation "works better" but personal opinions shouldn't come into it. What I really hate though is the inconsistency. One of the key problems that the cetaceans area has had since I stopped watching the articles like a hawk is the slow decay into a mixed bag of caps and not caps. Then that relatively new group on Wikipedia, the "reviewers" who just set up pages telling us how wrong the articles are (doesn't follow the latest and greatest pinickety referencing style, inline citation density not high enough, you know all the stuff except comments about content) BUT don't bother to do the obvious thing and fix it themselves, come along and splatter ugly templates on otherwise fine articles just to make themselves feel like they are doing something. After years of proof, it is clear that we can't keep caps and be consistent. Let's try NOT having caps and see if people stop picking at the festering wound. Pcb21 Pete 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of a horse with covered face

Dear mammal project, I recently took this photo of a horse with a covered face. If I may guess it is because:

• the horse is (or is at risk to to becoming) snowblind
• have ear or eye problems
• have problems with some sort of sensory overflow.

I am not really good at horses so I am only guessing.

If someone knows where this image could belong in wikipedia, could you please put it somewhere. I scanned horse and Veterinary medicine but found no obvious place to put it. Also if you know what it is for please tell me - I am so curious. -- PER9000 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a FLY MASK. I have no clue why they have it on in the winter when there aren't any flies, but that's what it is. Maybe it is there for some other purpose, but it's actually made of a see-through mesh -- the horse, as you can see from its forward-pricked ears, is obviously looking at something.

Here is an example from a catalogue: http://www.horse-tack-and-equestrian-clothing.com/fly-masks-fringes-masta-fly-mask-prod1688.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Here are some more examples: http://www.statelinetack.com/global/search/search_results.jsp?Ntt=fly+mask&In=Horse&previousText=fly+mask&N=2050678 Montanabw 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the text in the commons page. -- PER9000 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I created a stub: Fly mask. -- PER9000 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dog with bandaged foot

I also took a picture of a dog with a bandaged foot that should belong somewhere perhaps. The dog is my moms and he had an Abscess that ruptured in the paw. After horrible cleaning, antibiotoics and painkillers he is now himself again.

Does this image belong in Dog health? PER9000 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information unrepresentative of geographic range

Could an expert expand or amend the information for Perognathus flavescens? It appears to be written by someone who doesn't know the species outside of the southwest. This species is documented in SD, and we have only a couple of the flora mentioned.TeamZissou 09:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standardization of Species Listings

There are a multitude of ways in which genus trees are listed. Some place the scientific names first (makes searching and reading much easier), some place the vernacular names first (helps elementary kids with school projects read lists), some even flip a few here-and-there. Some seperate names with a dash, some simply place them side-by-side. There are lists with subsets of data, then others that list all species in a row without regard. This is something that should be discussed and decided upon, keeping in mind that this is an encylopedic site instead of a book, that Wikipedia is used by experts as well as laiety, and that there isn't an index in the back.

Here are some examples of different lists:

Vernacular names first, subsets.
Hare (Lepus)
Sorex
Mustela

Vernacular names first, no subsets.
Microtus
Necromys
Tamias
Monodelphis (double linkage)

Scientific names first, subsets, no vernacular names.
Peromyscus

Scientific names first, no subsets (two versions).
Spermophilus
Perognathus
Myotis (vernacular names linked)

Etc., etc. With lesser-known mammals such as some of the obscure rodents, vernacular names don't make much sense--there are three names for a type of shrew in my state (SD) yet only one scientific name (obviously). As you can see, some of these are a little confusing.

Thanks. TeamZissou 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has really attempted to standardize common names for shrews, most rodents, and most bats until Wilson and Cole (2000; Common names of Mammal Species). This was followed by Duff and Lawson (2004; Checklist of Mammals) and Wilson and Reeder (2005; Mammal Species of the World). Each of these authors uses different names, each made up common names for about 1/3 of these problematic small mammals and each of these small mammal species is called something else in other texts (such as field guides and texts based on geography). I think it's bad idea to red link these species on the basis of common name since there is no telling which source will be used to create the article title and saying that Wilson and Reeder (2005) is the only valid reference for common names - sorry to those of you using other valid sources - is not reasonable. If the genus article links to one common name (or capitalization scheme) and the species article is eventually created using another (or the scientific name) that link will stay red indefinitely. If the taxobox contains a full list by scientific name then it's fine to only link to common name in the text. If the article already exists then by all means link the correct article title or use the appropriate piping to avoid the redirect. Otherwise, in my opinion, the scientific name (the only reliable name) should be linked. Linking both is a valid option as well. --Aranae 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks for your input! TeamZissou 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.... list of placental mammals has both links, and I routinely check it to backlink. The typical way to list mammal species is by common name. Why have multple types of listings within Mammalia, when commonality works better for the reader, and the existing list works better for the editor? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, there are differing common names for many animals. Though there have been recent efforts to standardize vernacular names, the scientific ones have lasted much longer and one name means one species. If a scientific name changes, it through a process of review and debate. There is a reason that a species has this-or-that scientific name--it denotes the species place in the phylogenic tree. Does "Eastern Hobnosed Water Monkey" do that? No. The reader can more easily connect the evolutionary dots and thus it improves the reader's experience. Besides, if a reader is delving deep into obscure mammals anyway (most are to the common user), there's a good chance that reader is or will be involved in the sciences. In the SCIENCES we use binomial nominclature for obvious reasons that include universal usage and the adherence to phylogenetic systematics. The only mammalogist I know of who prefers vernacular names is an unIntelligent Design advocate, and a poor naturalist. Wikipedians should be at least a notch above Bob Jones University in their efforts to make accurate knowledge available to the world.

Besides, the list of placental mammals is likely the way it is due to you doing more editing on it than all other users combined over the past year-and-a-half, and thus shouldn't be an example of what policies should be pursued. If lists of mammals are constructed in a way following the phylogenic placement of species, then let's use a naming system that's related to that, not a naming system based on what Joe-blow decided to name "this here critter" a hundred years ago. Example of how we could: [3]

TeamZissou 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a distinction between large, well known beasts such as primates and carnivores (the well known third) as opposed shrews, bats, and small rodents (the lesser known 2/3). The former elicit regular queries and discussions by the general populace and generally get lots of attention. Most notably, they actually had common names before Wilson and Cole (2000). The latter (particularly species found in non-English speaking countries) are rarely noticed by anyone other than experts and those experts know them by their scientific names. Right now the list of placental mammals does not go beyond genus for 17 rodent families and all bat families. That's not an accident. MacDonald's (1987) popular text: Encyclopedia of Mammals (I haven't seen the new version) doesn't address rodent, bat, and "insectivore" species except in the index. Desmond Morris's (1965) The Mammals didn't even manage an index for them and many geographic texts (e.g. Kingdon, 1997) take the same approach.

These are the taxa I tend to write about most (particularly rodents). I'm quite comfortable with a large chunk of these scientific names, but I'd have to look up almost every common name outside of a few North American species. For better or worse, I do take a different approach to tracking new articles, which is almost entirely based on the taxonomic hierarchy. Uther, you're probably the hardest working member of this wikiproject, but I really don't think you want to take on the other, 2/3 of mammal species from a strictly common name perspective. They're certain to involve lots of lesser known common names coming from obscure, but valid, sources like texts on the Mammals of Brazil, Indonesia, southern Africa. Those sources really do all use different common names but (basically) the same scientific names. Perhaps 5 years from now when every mammal species has an article we should convert everything to common names, but until then I think not linking the binomen will just makes headaches for editors. --Aranae 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I visited the Smithsonian MSW page at this location and found that if one searches the root of the MSW tree, one finds that the species are listed at the end in phylogentic groups of scientific names. Also, the search option via scientific names comes before the option for common names, despite such an arrangement not following alphabetical order--both discoveries suggest that the MSW organizes by scientific name, not vernacular. Other than all the work User:UtherSRG has put in to organize it the opposite way, I see no reason not to follow the most practical and universally accepted means of building lists of mammals. 1.Phylogentically 2.Alphabetically with scientific name first and vernacular name attached. TeamZissou 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example I found on the pocket gopher page:

• • • Genus Geomys - eastern pocket gophers; principally found in the south-western United States, east of the Sierra Nevada mountains.
      • Geomys arenarius; two subspecies, the Desert and White Sands Pocket Gophers
      • Attwater's Pocket Gopher (G. attwateri)
      • Plains Pocket Gopher (G. bursarius); two subspecies
      • Jones' Pocket Gopher (G. knoxjonesi)
      • Geomys personatus; 5 subspecies including the Texas, Davis, Maritime and Carrizo Springs Pocket Gophers
      • Geomys pinetis; 4 subspecies, the Southeastern, Cumberland Island, Sherman's and Goff's Pocket Gophers
      • Geomys texensis; 2 subspecies, including the LLano Pocket Gopher

...or how about this horrid example from the marmot page?

• The following is a list of all Marmota species recognized by Wilson and Reeder, 1993 [4].

• • Gray Marmot or Altai Marmot Marmota baibacina Siberia
  • Bobak Marmot Marmota bobak Central Europe to Central Asia
  • Alaska Marmot, Brower's Marmot or Brooks Range Marmot Marmota broweri Nearctic
  • Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Northwestern North America
  • Black-Capped Marmot Marmota camtschatica Eastern Siberia
  • Red Marmot, Golden Marmot or Long-Tailed Marmot Marmota caudata Central Asia
  • Yellow-Bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris South western Canada, Western United States
  • Himalayan marmot or Tibetan Snow Pig Marmota himalayana Himalaya
  • Alpine Marmot Marmota marmota Central and Western European Alps, Tatra, introduced into the Pyrenees.
  • Menzbier's Marmot Marmota menzbieri Central Asia
  • Woodchuck, Groundhog, or Whistlepig Marmota monax North America
  • Olympic Marmot Marmota olympus Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA
  • Tarvaga, Tarbagan or Mongolian Marmot Marmota sibirica, Siberia
  • Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada

Notice how species with multiple common names don't fit? If this list were simply arranged scientific name first, then these wouldn't have discrepancies. TeamZissou 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to leave the multiple names for the article itself. The listing should be the most common or official name. Redirects and disambiguations should then be created as needed. Look at all the primate genus articles for an example. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Official name? You mean the scientific name?TeamZissou 06:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I? mean its official common name, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"or a reasonable facsimile thereof" --? I give up. Laity wins. All hail the new 'scientific' century.TeamZissou 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guinea pig

I just wanted to make this wikiproject aware that I have requested a peer review for the guinea pig article; if anyone wants to make suggestions, please do so. Chubbles 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)