Talk:Sciuridae

2005 comment

I think is a bad article. The classification is a bad one. Current classification includes the Petauristinae among the Sciurinae and instead uses the subfamilies Sciurillinae, Ratufinae, Xerinae and Callosciurinae. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 16:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed (2005)

I think the recent posting that "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed" is extreme. What's listed on the page is the most widely used taxonomic hypothesis. Recent molecular data do not support it and suggest that another hypothesis is required (such as what Ucucha lists above). This happens constantly with taxonomies. If we tag all articles where the taxonomy is disputed, those tags will go on almost every page that deals with biological organisms. --Aranae 15:08, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Squirrel?

Shouldn't this article be merged with Squirrel? They seem to be about the same animal.220.76.15.231 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be a difference: Sciuridae refers to the entire family Sciuridae, which also contains marmots, prairie dogs, chipmunks, and some other animals. "Squirrel" largely refers to those Sciuridae which live in trees, though there are quite some exceptions (such as Spermophilus species which are called "ground squirrels").

I do actually think the merge would be a good idea, though. "Squirrel" may be used with a slightly different meaning, but it is also often simply used for the family as a whole (i.e., including marmots, chipmunks, and others). Another problem is that "squirrel" as used in the squirrel article is not a scientific term; it refers to a rather random assemblage of Sciuridae. Ucucha 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that marmots and chipmunkss are not referred to as squirrels in everyday speech (although they are by we zoology types), and that there's no great problem having an article for the everyday meaning of the word (squirrel), and another for the scientific grouping to which the squirrels belong (sciuridae). So I'm happy enough with the status quo. Anaxial (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the possible merging of parts of the Squirrel article into this page and the clear cut purposing of the remaining squirrel article on the Squirrel article talk page. Comments from authors of this page and interested individuals would be appreciated.Davefoc (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

Does anybody think the pages should be merged now? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much of a point in keeping them separate. Ucucha 00:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends. For example, Is a woodchuck a squirrel or not? It depends what one means by squirrel, which is an English word. English words don't always correspond directly to an international, technical, Greek/Latin words. Look at the article porcupine, for example. I have a list of these I'm working on, and they don't all lend themselves to the same treatment. Sometimes Wikipedia has settled on a disambiguation page, sometimes on an umbrella article, or sometimes just as a note in the one main article, either predominantly or as sort of a footnote. In this case, the only thing keeping the two from being exact synonyms are the Marmots and the chipmunks, which not everyone agrees are understood by native speakers to be squirrels, although one option is to set the reader straight about that. Then there is the example of the scaly-tailed squirrels, which are to my mind at least pretty darn squirrely for a creature more closely related to a springhare than to any other existent animal. At least as squirrely as woodchucks, which no one I know calls or thinks of as part of the definition of squirrel around here. See Idiurus zenkeri, or look at the U-Mich animal diversity web page and see what you think: http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/pictures/Anomalurus.html, for example. Nature repeats itself sometimes. http://www.fieldmuseum.org/tanzania/species_swa.asp?ID=590 Chrisrus (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think they should certainly be merged. There is indeed some variation as to what the word "squirrel" means: some would say all Sciuridae are squirrels, while others would restrict the term to tree squirrels. Doesn't matter here though one way or the other, as there is already an article called Tree squirrel: if Squirrel is not the same as Sciuridae (which I would say it is), it must be the same as Tree squirrel (though in British usage there's no doubt that marmots, chipmunks and woodchucks are squirrels: they're ground squirrels). I see no reason to get bogged down with scaly-tailed squirrels or any other non-Sciuridae "squirrels" – those just happen to use the same word in their name, and they can stay in their own articles, as Egyptian Goose is not a goose. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Great way to put it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Where you live, if someone sees a marmot, they go "Hey, look at the squirrel!"? Here they only do that for tree or ground squirrels. Chrisrus (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but do people call shovelers ducks, or flickers woodpeckers? No, but obviously they are. The only marmots in these plains are woodchucks. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good point. But not all cases are the same. Dolphins are obviously toothed whales, but we don't merge those articles. Dogs are in Canis lupus but we don't merge those articles. Lots of Taxa are called "tribbles and their allies", this is a possible way forward here. My point was I really doubt it's just that Americans don't understand what British people do which is that a woodchuck is a big ground squirrel. So I asked. Chrisrus (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't Support. First off, I'm a self-avowed Wiki-Separatist, and so my normal knee-jerk reaction is to keep articles short, and to then provide well-linked sub-articles to delve into subordinate subjects in greater depth; this practice generally keeps the articles more "readable" and more comprehensible for the average reader. However, even beyond that, I believe that there is a very solid reason (not just based on subjective philosophy) why these two articles (Squirrel and Sciuridae) need to be kept separate, and that is due to the fact that the sub-family Xerinae includes marmots and woodchucks. Although it could be argued that most of the other species within the Sciuridae Family might be generically called "squirrels", there simply is no way that anyone would call a marmot by that moniker. Marmots have many common names in English (including rock chucks, groundhogs, and boodogs, among others), but they have never been called "squirrels", as far as I can see in the usual references (OED, Enc. Brit, etc). I rest my case with that evidence and rhetoric. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Squirrels.—Actually, Enc. Brit. [1] writes that "The squirrel family includes ground squirrels, chipmunks, marmots, prairie dogs, and flying squirrels, but to most people squirrel refers to the 122 species of tree squirrels, which belong to 22 genera of the subfamily Sciurinae." OED defines "squirrel" as "One or other of various species of slender, graceful, agile rodents (characterized by a long bushy tail, furry coat, and bright eyes), belonging to the genus Sciurus, or to the widely-distributed sub-family Sciurina including this; esp. the common species Sciurus vulgaris, native to Britain, Europe, and parts of Asia." but also for sciuroid: "Zool. Of or pertaining to the Sciuridæ, or squirrel-family." Merriam-Webster defines squirrel as "any of various small or medium-sized rodents (family Sciuridae, the squirrel family): as a : any of numerous New or Old World arboreal forms having a long bushy tail and strong hind legs b : GROUND SQUIRREL"
  • Marmots.—Merriam-Webster: "any of a genus (Marmota) of ... rodents of the squirrel family ...". OED: "Any of several burrowing colonial rodents of the genus Marmota, which are among the largest members of the squirrel family (Sciuridae) ..." Enc. Brit.: "Marmots belong to the squirrel family (Sciuridae) within the order Rodentia."
  • Analysis.—As I noted below, many, probably most, sources equate "squirrel" with "Sciuridae", including the ones you cited for the contrary position. I think we should follow their lead and do the same, creating an article at "squirrel" that covers the family Sciuridae as a whole. It's not at all clear to me what an article on "squirrel" separate from "Sciuridae" would cover, especially when we already have tree squirrel. Also note Richard's point below that Wikipedia articles are not about words. However, we should probably have a hatnote at the squirrel article saying something like: "This article covers the squirrel family (Sciuridae) as a whole. See tree squirrel for some of the species most commonly referred to as "squirrels"." Ucucha 23:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, and by this logic, we should merge the entire order of Rodents together (including squirrels/sciuridae) under one article, and we can name the article The Rats and be done with it. --Saukkomies ^talk 02:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where my logic leads to merging all rodents. That would certainly be a ridiculous conclusion, so I would like to see the point in my reasoning that leads to this error. Could you please explain? Ucucha 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We're coming from two diametrically-opposite opinions on this. You're an inclusionist, I'm a separatist. I feel that there is a need for a separate article on Squirrels, you do not. This is largely due to the way we perceive how knowledge ought to be organized. Each of these philosophies has its pros and cons, but at least I admit that I am a separatist, it's a fundamental way of perceiving the world that dictates much of how I organize articles I write and edit. There is a reason Wikipedia is designed to have many ways to link to other articles. Why not take advantage of this? --Saukkomies ^talk 03:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in any philosophical differences and ask you to refrain from inferring from my posts here my opinion on anything else than the merger of those two articles. Rather, I would like you to focus on my substantive arguments, such as the fact that the sources you cite actually call marmots squirrels, contrary to your claim above. Ucucha 03:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

(readjusting margin) Okay, you win, Ucacha. I apologize. My quick scan of my mini-OED did not show me the same information you presented. However, I do believe that you are trying to push a square peg into a round hole by shoving the entire contents of both the Squirrel and Sciuriae articles into one. It seems like you are forcing the encyclopedia to only talk about animals in taxonomic/biological ways, and are dismissing the fact that there are non-biological, non-empirical aspects of the squirrel that ought to be covered as well. People do not think of marmots as squirrels, and if someone is using the encyclopedia to read about cultural aspects of squirrels, they shouldn't have to wade through a huge over-inflated article that discusses all of the various members of the Sciuridae family in order to find the relevant information. It goes the same with Marmots/Groundhogs - they, too warrant their own article, separate from Sciuridae. If the Groundhog has its own article (which it does), why deny the same for the Squirrel???? --Saukkomies ^talk 03:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: Look at these articles: Marmot, Groundhog, Yellow-bellied Marmot, Hoary Marmot, Ground squirrel, Prairie dog, and Alpine Marmot. Each of these members of the Sciuridae family has its own article. So, why remove the article for Squirrel? It simply does not make logical sense. --Saukkomies ^talk 03:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Because for those animals we don't have reliable sources equating their names with Sciuridae. But what do you think of my arrangement below? I think it addresses both our concerns. Ucucha 03:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

See below for my comment. :) --Saukkomies ^talk 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Further comment. I do think we need to remember that WP articles are about things, not words (WP:NOTDICT). Therefore we should first decide what things need articles, and only then decide what these should be called. It seems to me that the "things" should be taxonomic divisions, and if so, I can see these articles needed:

• The whole squirrel family, Sciuridae.
• Tree squirrels
• Ground squirrels
• (Perhaps other subdivisions of Sciuridae)

The problem is really the Squirrel article. At present it overlaps heavily with Sciuridae, as it's based pretty much on the British English use of the word "squirrel". If we went with the American usage, it would then overlap with Tree squirrel. Either way we need a merge. Richard New Forest (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I actually agree with what you're saying, to a degree, in that there needs to be a re-editing of the Squirrel article. There definitely are parts of that article that belong to the taxonomic/zoologic article on Sciuridae. However, there are also aspects of Squirrels that are specifically about tree squirrels that I feel warrant encyclopedic coverage here in Wikipedia under a separate article. I'm refering specifically to the cultural/sociological aspects of squirrels. There seems to be a complete lack of respect among many of the editors who are concerned with the subject of squirrels to give any support whatsoever to these aspects of the squirrel, and I have seen this dismissed on more than one occassion by people as being "unencyclopedic" and having "too much weight", when the fact is that it is dealing with an entirely different realm of human knowledge that is separate from the biological scientific aspects of the squirrel/sciuriae taxonomic order.

So, yes, there needs to be a re-edit. But I still absolutely believe that there must be a separate article that touches on aspects of the Squirrel that are isolated from the other members of the Sciuridae family. Where else would these cultural aspects be placed? They do not have anything to do with marmots or groundhogs. But in the end I'll go along with whatever the consensus is here, since it's just a dumb article, and who really gives a rip? :) --Saukkomies ^talk 03:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What about tree squirrel for that article you are referring to? Ucucha 03:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. However, the Tree squirrel article has just way too much taxonomy in it. How about this? We put all of the taxonomical/biological stuff in the Sciuridae article, and the aspects dealing specifically with the tree squirrels that we all immediately think of when that word is used into another article called either Squirrel or Tree squirrel? Link them together, and there we have our compromise... --Saukkomies ^talk 03:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted below how I would prefer to organize the relevant articles. Ucucha 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it. --Saukkomies ^talk 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the definition of squirrel as a synonym of the taxon Sciuridae is the by far most common, is more inclusive than a syonym for tree squirrel, and is not restricted to Britain. We clearly should merge this article with squirrel. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much evidence either for a US-UK split in meaning. But what is a syoand? Ucucha 00:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A synoand is what happens when you press "backspace" too hard. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Arrangement

• Squirrel - general information on the family Sciuridae, with the hatnote I mentioned above.
• Tree squirrel - general information on squirrels that live in trees, including much of the stuff currently at squirrel.
• Sciurini - separate article on a taxonomic group (our article currently equates it with "tree squirrel", but goes against sources such as Britannica with that)

Ucucha 03:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good compromise to me Ucucha. --Saukkomies ^talk 03:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging: What sources do and don't do =

What Chrisrus or anyone else thinks about the looks of anomalurids should have little bearing on Wikipedia articles; instead we should look at what reliable sources do. I found a few. McKenna and Bell (1997, Classification of Mammals, p. 121) use "Squirrels" as the common name for Sciuridae as a whole. Emmons and Feer (1997, Neotropical Rainforest Mammals, p. 184) do the same (though they cover an area where the only squirrels are tree squirrels). Duff and Lawson (2004, Mammals of the World) do the same (though this is not the best of sources). Whitaker and Hamilton (1998, Mammals of the Eastern United States, [2]) give "squirrels and woodchucks" in a section header, but use "squirrels" in the text for Sciuridae. Smithers' Mammals of South Africa (2004) appears to use "squirrels" for Sciuridae as a whole (though the Google Books preview is a bit limited; I don't have my copy of the book now). Stuart (2001, Field Guide to the Mammals of Southern Africa, [3]) gives "squirrels" as the common name for Sciuridae (both of those don't cover marmots or chipmunks, of course). Burt and Grossenheider (A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico, [4]) do the same. Reid (1998, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico) does the same (but does not cover marmots or chipmunks). The Kaufman Field Guide to the Mammals of North America refers to "the squirrel family (Sciuridae)". The Field Guide to the Cascades & Olympics uses the same wording. Adirondack Wildlife has the section header "Chipmunks and squirrels", but proceeds to tell us '"Squirrel" is a common term primarily used for chipmunks and tree squirrels, but woodchucks, flying squirrels, and western prairie dogs are all squirrels belonging to the family Sciuridae.' (Note that I did not cherrypick these sources in any way: they are the books I have here that have information pertinent to this, and books I found somewhat randomly at Google Books; the last few were found with this search query.) Also see Google Scholar, which does contain a few sources stating things like "squirrels and allies (Sciuridae)".

I think the sources I cited make it clear that reliable sources mostly equate "squirrel" with "Sciuridae". So should we. Ucucha 22:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Equates: McKenna and Bell (1997, Classification of Mammals, p. 121) use "Squirrels" as the common name for Sciuridae as a whole.

Emmons and Feer (1997, Neotropical Rainforest Mammals, p. 184) do the same (though they cover an area where the only squirrels are tree squirrels) …and as such don‘t help the question.

Duff and Lawson (2004, Mammals of the World) do the same (though this is not the best of sources).

Equates

Whitaker and Hamilton (1998, Mammals of the Eastern United States, [1]) give "squirrels and woodchucks" in a section header, but use "squirrels" in the text for Sciuridae. Distinguishes and equates.

Smithers' Mammals of South Africa (2004) appears to use "squirrels" for Sciuridae as a whole (though the Google Books preview is a bit limited; I don't have my copy of the book now).

..appears to doesn’t cut it.

Stuart (2001, Field Guide to the Mammals of Southern Africa, [2]) gives "squirrels" as the common name for Sciuridae (both of those don't cover marmots or chipmunks, of course).

…and as such don’t help the question

Burt and Grossenheider (A Field Guide to the Mammals: North America North of Mexico, [3]) do the same.

Equates

Reid (1998, A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico) does the same (but does not cover marmots or chipmunks).

…doesn’t help the question.

The Kaufman Field Guide to the Mammals of North America refers to "the squirrel family (Sciuridae)".

…distinguishes

The Field Guide to the Cascades & Olympics uses the same wording. Adirondack Wildlife has the section header "Chipmunks and squirrels", but proceeds to tell us '"Squirrel" is a common term primarily used for chipmunks and tree squirrels, but woodchucks, flying squirrels, and western prairie dogs are all squirrels belonging to the family Sciuridae.'

Destinguishes, but with a nice approach, gives some respect to the English language but details the facts.

Also see Google Scholar, which does contain a few sources stating things like "squirrels and allies (Sciuridae)".

….Distinguishes

Thank you for the evidence but I don’t think it supports your conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by chrisrus (talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What does not, then? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just saying that this evidence presented here doesn't show that sources agree that the two terms are synonyms. It seems to me to say that some sources think of sciurids as "Squirrels and allies" or other words to the effect of "Squirrels and their close relatives". It does prove that some do, however, equate the words. Chrisrus (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)