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 more than that, I believe that there is a very solid basis (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 one of the sub-family Xerinae, which includes marmots and woodchucks. Although it could be argued that most of the other species within the Sqiuridae 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". I rest my case with that. --Saukkomies ^talk 21:56, 18 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, [1]) 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, [2]) 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, [3]) 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)