Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora, List of carnivoran genera, and related list name discussions

First, I'd like to initiate discussion of List of carnivoran genera, which I feel should be merged or deleted, as it duplicates content from both List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora and List of mammal genera#Carnivora. The discussion started at Talk:List of placental mammals in Order Carnivora, but name change may affect similar lists, so it's probably best to discuss here. Secondly, List of carnivoran genera aside, I think it is unnecessarily redundant to have "placental" in all relevant lists (see Category:Lists of placental mammals). The article naming scheme appears to have derived from the category name, but by definition there are no non-placentals in any placental orders, so why not simplify the title of all to simply "List of mammals in order X", or better yet "List of species in order X" for less ambiguity, per WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE, to indicate that species are the focal elements being listed, as opposed to genera, individuals, etc? --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Cetacean Taxonomy Template for auto taxobox

Hi,

I am trying to correct the taxonomy template for cetaceans. Template:Taxonomy/Cetacea/Mammalia. The Order for all cetaceans should be Cetartiodactyla Not Cetacea (which should be unranked based on current understanding); and Odontoceti and Mysticeti, which were previously suborder should be unranked. The old system should always be visible as unranked, since this is a major change in taxonomy compared to current public knowledge. I have managed to make Cetacea and the two suborders unranked in the template, but it will not allow me to make an new entry for the Order 0 which should be Cetartiodactyla. Does anyone here have experience with the Template:Taxonomy/Cetacea/Mammalia and who understands the classification changes I am proposing below. THANKS ShaneGero (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Based on molecular and morphological research, the cetaceans genetically and morphologically fall firmly within the Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates). The term Cetartiodactyla reflects the idea that whales evolved within the ungulates. The term was coined by merging the name for the two orders, Cetacea and Artiodactyla, into a single word. Under this definition, the closest living land relative of the whales and dolphins is thought to be the hippopotamuses. Use of Order Cetartiodactyla, instead of Cetacea with Suborders Odontoceti and Mysticeti, is favored by most evolutionary mammalogists working with molecular data and is supported the IUCN Cetacean Specialist Group and by Taxonomy Committee of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, the largest international association of marine mammal scientists in the world.

References

I don't know much about the intricacies of automatic taxoboxes myself. You might better luck asking at Template talk:Automatic taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Making the change is a bit fussy and nonobvious. I or folks who frequent Template talk:Automatic taxobox can do it. In fact, we had a discussion about whether to do it long ago at Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_8#Cetacea.But first we need to decide if we want to:

• replace Order Cetacea with Order Cetartiodactyla on all whale taxoboxes. e.g. Common dolphin, etc.
• replace Order Artiodactyla with Order Cetartiodactlya on all cow/deer/etc taxoboxes. e.g. Moose, etc.
• change Cetacea/Odontoceti to be unranked everywhere: article text, etc.
• etc

Please discuss. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I directed ShaneGero (talk · contribs) here from Template talk:Taxonomy/#Template-protected edit request on 19 January 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

ShaneGero started this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. The thing is, they didn't link back to the original (see WP:MULTI) but created a fresh discussion as if there had been none previously. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure ShaneGero hadn't seen WP:MULTI nor would I have expected him to. :) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll note that there have been similar discussions about including Saurischia or Dinosauria on e.g. Bald eagle's taxobox, and they obviously didn't get very far: e.g. Template_talk:Automatic_taxobox/Archive_6#Attention_members_of_WP:BIRDS. Maybe this is more palatable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, ErikHaugen, and Redrose64: Consolidating this discussion here until we get to some resolution - I think its an inconsistency issue across the articles rather than a scientific one. Cetartiodactyla is the phylogenetically correct ORDER. Its correct in some articles and not others (although not always in the taxobox, but in text of the article) and its even clear on the even-toed ungulate page. The issue is with public perception, and this is why I was trying to leave Cetacea and its two suborders visible with unranked status, and eventually I was also going to do so for Artiodactyla, until the phylogeny within Cetartiodactyla is clarified below Order. If you read that 2010 series of posts, it is a bold move, but its the correct one, I just do not have the know-how to edit the template code. My apologies, but I am new to Wikipedia. I can provide all the references to back it up if that is part of the problem. I think if we leave the old system visible and footnote it with links to the old order pages then we should be fine. Look at Sperm whale which I changed since it has a manual taxobox. It has the footnote for Cetartiodactyla and the unranked Cetacean and Odontoceti still link to the original articles. This way people can read the justification, and go to the articles about the old system if necessary (although they need to be updated too - working on it). Will someone revert it? Maybe, but then we can try to move forward from their. I am new, so I=is this not the correct approach? Should we ping in some of the users from that 2010 series of posts and from Talk:Cetartiodactyla? ShaneGero (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ShaneGero, what do you think the taxobox at Giraffe should look like? Should we change Artiodactyla to Cetartiodactyla there? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Trinomial reference

Hello, does anyone know where I could confirm the Trinomial reference to go in the taxabox for an extinct sub-species of Canis lupus, please? William Harris • talk • 20:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for just the name and author or the original reference? If it's not listed under ITIS Canis lupus, you might have luck with a Google Scholar search. This paper may provide assistance. What trinomial are your looking for? --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, thanks for your speedy reply. I have created a short article on Canis lupus variabilis named by Pei in 1934. I had assumed that this name gets recorded in some august volume somewhere in the world and that this makes it official. (NB: I am not a biologist, have no idea!). Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Is that an available name, recognised by the ICZN? I ask because Canis variabilis was named by Wied-Neuwied in 1841, and is now synonymised with a subspecies of grey wolf. So, if Wied-Neuwied's animal is now a subspecies, wouldn't that be the "real" C. l. variabilis? Either Pei's referring to the same animal, in which case the reference is "Weid-Neuweid 1841", or he's tried to name a new one, in which case (it seems to me) his name isn't valid? Not having the original source, I'm wondering whether Pei actually said he was the first to formally describe this animal? Anaxial (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just dug up a further reference (Wang & Tedford 2008), and it does seem that "Pei 1934" is the correct author. Whether the name is available or not is another matter, especially since the animal's subspecific nature is apparently in doubt, but it does appear to be in wide use. Anaxial (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Anaxial. Pei was not referring to the same wolf - his went extinct 200,000 years ago. However, thanks for looking up Wang and Tedford - those two know their stuff! I will run with Pei 1934. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Suborder in all primate taxa taxoboxes

I am proposing at WP:Animals that all primate taxa articles include the suborder so that the divide between strepsirrhine and haplorhine primates is more visible to readers. Please comment there. – Maky ^« talk » 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cougar

The naming of "Cougar" is under discussion, see talk:Cougar, Rlendog (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

New essay

There is a new essay Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles you are invited to comment on.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead image discussion

Discussion opening up on whether to change the lead image for cattle, see here. Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ape listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ape to be moved to Hominoidea. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Columbian mammoth at FAC

Columbian mammoth is currently nominated as a featured article candidate[1], any comments for its improvement are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Ocepeia up for peer review

I'm soliciting feedback on Ocepeia for a pre-GA peer review. Comments from specialists and non-specialists equally appreciated. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Ocepeia/archive1 to comment. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

HotArticlesBot subscription

The requested HotArticlesBot subscription has been fulfilled. The current stats for your project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Hot articles which is updated daily. I went ahead and added it to your WikiProject page so that people can find it. Feel free to move it elsewhere if you prefer. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Algerian Arab"

The naming and topic of Algerian Arab is under discussion, see talk:Algerian Arab -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ardennes Marmot

This draft has been submitted to AFC for review but I'm not sure if we are supposed to accept articles about species that have not yet been named. There is a plausible chance that it may turn out to be just a minor variant of an already existing species. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles on unnamed species may be appropriate if there are adequate sources to establish notability. However, the idea that species may be inherently notable (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) assumes that species have been formally named. The references for Ardennes Marmot aren't very good; one Youtube video and one TV interview, both from 2009. Six years should be enough time to at least verify that the marmot exists and capture a specimen. If there are no recent developments, I don't think the article should be accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the references currently in any stub Wikipedia article necessarily reflects what's actually out there. But I also think it may be premature, as there is no independent confirmation. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The existing references (an interview with the amateur naturalist and raw footage) do not seem sufficient to justify an article, as both are primary sources (one guy saying he saw a new species does not mean a new species has been discovered). As currently sourced, the article should not be accepted. If there is more extensive news coverage (from Belgium or anywhere), that lends credibility to this alleged new species, a stand-alone article may be warranted, but unless/until there is any sort of expert analysis, it might be better off left as a minor footnote in Marmot. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy and fetuses.

Hello, mammal people. I've a concern regarding mammals and people.

We currently have Pregnancy and Pregnancy (mammals). Also Fetus and Fetus (biology). This seems backwards, to use a qualifier for the general topic, and leave the general term redirect to specific mammal issues. Sure, that mammal is homo sapiens, the only kind to read Wikipedia. But we're meant to be objective and neutral here. Even widely-held bias is bias, and directing humans to learn about their own kind rather than the general term they queried furthers this bias.

I saw this briefly discussed on the human pregnancy talk page, but years ago. Anybody up for change? Any opposed? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Individual albino gorillas

I've proposed upmerging Category:Individual albino gorillas, as it is likely to remain a single entry category for the foreseeable future. Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_8#Category:Individual_albino_gorillas. --Animalparty! (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Humans on lists

Hi,

I noticed that homo sapiens isn't included on the vast majority of the location lists. For instance - the featured List of mammals of Florida states there are 98 mammals in the state, but as that excludes humans surely it is one short?

A few lists, such as List of mammals of Europe do include them. I'd have thought that would be most appropriate approach?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Listing humans seems pedantic and is not really very useful: people use lists to learn what lives in a place. It is taken for granted that humans live in every country or populated place on earth and are only infrequent visitors elsewhere. We humans aren't listed in most reliable sources as "mammals of X", or "Fauna of X" so Wikipedia should not include us. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Pedantic, yes, but there should be a consistent approach on all these lists - either include on all or exclude on all. And if excluded, there probably should be a minor mention before concentrating on the main task of talking about the primary subject. The native "range" of humanity does include every inhabited district after all. The IUCN Least Concern listing does cover all regions, so there is at least one reliable source for the ubiquity of humans.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally support excluding them on all such lists - I agree that we should be consistent, but I also agree with Animalparty that this isn't particularly useful information. Anaxial (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this - what's missing is mention of humans in the leads. The lists often say they exclude domesticated and/or introduced species, that could be modified to say something like "The list excludes humans and animals introduced by humans".

The educational value of mentioning humans is not "man is native to X", but "man is an animal". The absence of humans is slightly jarring here, where they are mentioned twice but are not listed. In that particular case, they are included in the article's primary source.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

To mention humans in every single "fauna of X" list, category or article borders on the absurd. As for "include all or exclude all", I can only say that is also ridiculously pedantic. If someone wants to deal with the endless debate sure to ensue a bout of removing them all, knock yourself out, bucko, I'm not into that level of drama. Montanabw^(talk) 04:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As always, we should reflect what the sources do. Most sources that list native animals in various regions do not list humans among them. FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Homo sapens sapiens is native to the tropical and subtropical grasslands, savannas, and shrublands of the Afrotropic ecozone, they are an invasive alien species everywhere else. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Other red cell antigens"

Other red cell antigens has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Other red cell antigens -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

New article needs attention: Bosnian endemic venison

A user has recently created Bosnian endemic venison, that is basically a list of endemic(?) mammals in Bosnia. I'm not sure all are valid subspecies, and I'm not sure the format is in line with other similar articles, but figured people more familiar with Palearctic mammals should have a look. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The creator has just blanked the page. I've tagged it for CSD G7. Anaxial (talk) 20:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Good Articles lacking focal images

I'm not sure if this is worth putting on the Main project page "To do" list, but I've found a handful of Good Articles lacking images of the subject (although they may contain maps, related organisms, etc.) I recently put a notice on WikiProjects Arthropods, stating The following articles have been assessed as Good Articles, but lack illustrations of the subject. If you can find, or create, a suitably licensed illustration or photograph, please upload to Commons and add to the article(s) to make them even better. For mammals, the list includes

• Tupaia miocenica - fossil treeshrew
• Trapalcotherium - fossil Gondwanathere
• Neoromicia malagasyensis - bat
• Miniopterus zapfei - fossil bat
• Miniopterus tao - fossil bat
• Miniopterus mahafaliensis - bat
• Miniopterus brachytragos - bat
• Microgale macpheei - fossil tenrec

Update: Featured Articles lacking focal images!
Rodents:

• Akodon spegazzinii
• Eremoryzomys
• Euryoryzomys emmonsae
• Macrotarsomys petteri
• Monticolomys
• Noronhomys
• Oryzomys dimidiatus
• Oryzomys gorgasi
• Seorsumuscardinus (fossil)
• Thomasomys ucucha
• Voalavo
• Voalavo gymnocaudus

--Animalparty! (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help on U.S. vs. Australia bats needed

Myotis septentrionalis, the small U.S. one. No pic is available for the Australian one.

Hi, I know little about bats and could not possibly identify the one flying around in my house the other night, but I am involved in the wp:DPL project to eliminate ambiguous links in Wikipedia, and that brought me and another editor (Niceguyedc) to the topic of Northern long-eared bats. As it should be, that topic is now a set index article, not a disambiguation page. There is one species native to Australia with article currently named Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilus) and there's one native to the U.S. and Canada with article currently named Northern long-eared bat (myotis) (it is an endangered small bat). They are both within the vesper bats family.

Can we assume that this diff which assumes a bat in Pennsylvania, U.S., is the myotis type, on South Branch Roaring Creek article is correct? We assume that the U.S. bat is the one that would be there.

However, there's article List of mammals of South Carolina where this diff applies the Nyctophils type, consistent with the article text already identifying it as Nyctophilus arnhemensis. But is that correct, is the Australia bat now spread in the U.S.?

(Also, Nyctophilus was mentioned in the text already and we assume Australia's Nyctophilus is correct for both List of mammals in Australia and for List of mammals of New South Wales, Australia, in this diff and this diff. And Myotis was mentioned in the text already and we assume the U.S.'s Myotis is correct for List of mammals of New England, U.S., in [this diff.)

Also, by the way:

• maybe the Australia one should be moved to Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilus daedalus)?
• maybe the U.S. and Canada one should be moved to Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis)?

Help would be appreciated! sincerely, --doncram 15:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Myotis septentrionalis is definitely present in South Carolina, so it should be on the list regardless. Given that there is no evidence that the Nyctophilus species is also present there, and that, moreover, it's extremely unlikely that it even could be, I think we're justified in removing it from the list. I'm sure it was just a typo by the original editor. I have made the amendment. Anaxial (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is, however, I note, something of a confusion as to whether Northern long-eared bat (Nyctophilus) is actually describing the correct species. There is no source given that this is the common name for N. daedalus, merely a statement in the edit history that there is a separate page for N. arnhemensis (which there isn't any more - it's just a redirect to this page). Both the IUCN and MSW3 state that "northern long-eared bat" is the common name for N. arnhemensis, and MSW3 also says that daedalus is a subspecies of N. bifax. The paper cited in the article states that N. daedalus has since been promoted to full species, which is fine, but it also states that it is definitely not a synonym for N. arnhemensis. Our Nyctophilus page also lists both species separately, although both links point to the same page. In short, do we have any evidence at all that the two are synonyms, and, if they aren't, that the common name has been applied to the correct species? Anaxial (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of contrary opinion, I have now changed the pages concerned to match the information available in the sources. Anaxial (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: One way to disambiguate these two bats from different continents, without the cumbersome parentheticals, would be to simply use Northern myotis for Myotis septentrionalis in place of "Northern long-eared bat", as several sources already do (IUCN, MSW, several field guides), with the understanding that many species have more than one common name (even "official" common names), and some species share similar vernacular names. Also since myotis is already in the common name, that title is more precise than just "bat", and thus satisfies both WP:PRECISE and WP:NATURALDIS. A simple hatnote on Nyctophilus arnhemensis that says: "For the North American bat species, see Northern myotis" should suffice. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Prototheria and yinotheria

Back in December, prototheria was blanked and redirected to yinotheria. A Google search (and a much longer write up of the results - details on prototheria's talk page) makes it clear to this non-expert that reports of prototheria's demise have been exaggerated, so I restored the article. My knowledge of taxonomy is far from perfect, and would appreciate some more knowledgeable editors taking a look. It's probably a good idea to consolidate the discussion on the prototheria talk page. (See also the WP:Paleontology talk page).--Wikimedes (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Draft about an extinct whale genus at AFC

Your opinions of Draft:Brandtocetus please. If you don't want to, or don't know how to do a full AFC review, please simply post your comments on the draft's talk page. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy about the retention of stubs? This editor has created a stub. Raggz (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a general consensus that at least all genera warrant articles. When it comes to extinct taxa, species and subspecies are usually merged with the genus article, unless there is enough text about them to justify a split. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Brown bear articles & downgrading to start class

As I joined only today I'm asking for advice regarding changing articles to start class where it does not accurately use the species name in the lead. To be above this level: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup."

Alternatively I could just fix it, but these just are reverted. In my opinion, getting the name of the species wrong is a substantial fail when the correct name is supported by authoritative cites. For names where a debate may exist then this is not a substantive fail when this controversy is described and cited. Raggz (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Lions and tigers and BEARS! Oh my!

I'm in. I'm not a bear expert or a taxonomist, but I have wrestled with other animal articles and am cognizant of the wild world or wiki. I think that each of the articles noted in the sections above need to stay as stand-alone articles for now to minimize assorted drama wars, but fixing the taxonomy to be correct using the best reliable sources should be doable. Once any absolutely egregious mistakes (if any) are fixed, then we have room for discusisons about merging or the creation of a {{Brown bears}} or whatever we need. Montanabw^(talk) 01:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that for many of the bear articles the problems can be overcome by concerted effort and good writing. There is usually some difficulty in ensuring taxonomic harmony and quality/recentness of source material between articles of any given taxon (be it multiple subspecies of a species, multiple families of an order, etc.) Any effort in bringing a group of articles up to common standards will be appreciated. Moving from bears to lions (oh my!), there are some big cat stubs of dubious taxonomic validity that may be more suited for merging at this point: with regards to the Leopard (Panthera pardus) I'm highlighting for scrutiny Barbary leopard, Kashmir leopard, Balochistan leopard, and Nepal leopard; and in regards to Jaguar (Panthera onca): Paraguayan jaguar, Peruvian jaguar, Arizonan jaguar, Goldman's jaguar, Panthera onca veraecrucis Panthera onca hernandesii, Panthera onca centralis, Panthera onca onca, and Jaguars south of the Amazon River. Oh my! --Animalparty! (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Grizzly bear

Grizzly bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kodiak bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

California grizzly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ussuri brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Atlas bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Himalayan brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Marsican brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mexican grizzly bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ABC Islands bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alaska Peninsula brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ussuri brown bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not posting to TALK because my question relates to the many articles about the brown bear. All of the articles above are about the same species. I am a biologist who works in the area I am discussing. I try to help edit but I probably can only find about half of the brown bear articles. I recognize that even though I have technical expertise that we are all equals in the collegial process. I know how to do this. What I cannot do is debate on 28 or 56 different articles for the same species and for the same issue. I propose limiting scientific debate to one species page for each species where subordinate pages must conform to that consensus.

There should only be one central page for every species. If a student searches for brown bear, Mexican grizzly, or black grizzly all searches should direct to this one page. I propose that WP should have a rule that for every species that there be a main page where the science for the species is described. Another page that disputes the science must debate science on the main page.

There is only one species of brown bear and the Kodiak subspecies (debate exists within Russia where modern genetics has less weight) but there are thousands of old Latin and common names for them. "The specific status of North American grizzly bears is one of the most complex problems of mammalian taxonomy. The difficulty stems directly from the work of Merriam (1918), who concluded that there are 86 forms of grizzlies (and brown bears) in North America." (Rausch 1953) Merriam's Lamarckian version of genetics permitted litter-mates to be assigned to different species. WP now permits articles on all 86 brown bear species that he described in North America. WP now permits editors to say that the grizzly bear and brown bear are different species because the old scientific literature supports this. Is this acceptable?

Should there be a way for people to find all of the articles on this species? Every old name should have an article when someone wants this, "but these should all advise the reader of (1) the accepted scientific status, (2) the current accepted name, (3) and if there is an ongoing debate - a reference to both sides.

Example: "The Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) is one of the most common subspecies of the brown bear, found across Eurasia." Eurasian brown bear This is not true. Fifty years ago it was true but it has not been for 25 years. There are many seemingly reliable sources that were once correct to support this claim.

I like the idea that there is an article about the grizzly bear as long as someone writing a report on the brown bear knows that scientifically there is no such bear as a "grizzly bear". Grizzly bears still exist in our culture and language and there should be a page to discuss them with their old name (only used in North America). There is a huge trove of folklore for example. The lead format for the Himalayan brown bear would be enough if used consistently in every article (and its errors corrected).

These articles are very misleading scientifically. I cannot find all of them to fix them and I cannot engage in TALK for 28 different articles over the same issues. Grizzly bear for example has many scientifically invalid claims about science that are supported by long outdated citations that 50 years ago were reliable sources. Rausch is one example, his work is still respected for some topics but modern work has left other topics outdated. The Daily Republic newspaper is cited by an earnest editor on a technical topic for a claim that was once accurate.

Thank you your advice Raggz (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• There seems to have been similar problems with caribou and reindeer, probably others. I don't think populations that are not recognised as distinct taxa should have articles. But some of those you've listed seem to be valid subspecies, and merging such is a completely different discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, one species and one page. One subspecies and one page, but only for what is notable for that subspecies. The ABC Islands bears is the only subspecies recognized (except for 2-3 scientists in Russia who retain the old subspecies there) and it is also notable. The names reindeer and caribou are both notable. The California grizzly has mtDNA identical to the bears in Idaho. Being on the flag of the Bear Flag Republic it is notable. There should be an article. The article however is scientifically deeply flawed.

What is a species? The polar bear is a brown bear if we use the biological species definition of species. Cronin has argued that they are distinct genetic species, a claim that I could challenge. With bears what is a species or a subspecies quickly becomes murky. I propose a protected page for each "notable species". The polar bear may or may not be a biological species but it could be designated as a "notable species".

The Kodiak bear is not a subspecies but is very notable. It is NOT (Ursus arctos middendorffi)as is claimed. I might for example want to create a new stub about the great naked grizzly of New York, a mythical bear that has been cited speculatively by scientists to be the description of a brown bear population that did live there in that time. It would be better to have a separate article for this bear than to make a massive brown bear article more massive. This however raises a challenge: does the Reader recognize the context and also do new editors? Perhaps some stubs and some articles should be protected for this reason? Raggz (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not commenting with respect to any particular species, subspecies or geographic race, but when it comes to policies and guidelines, relevant info is at WP:PAGEDECIDE (Notability), WP:MERGEREASON, WP:Article size, and WP:Summary style). I don't think a proposed "one species one page" rule should preclude subspecies articles, and I don't think any new rules are needed, as subtopics (e.g. subspecies) still must abide by WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUEWEIGHT). In general, I think if there is sufficient specific secondary information on a topic such that a non-overlapping sub-topic article can be created, that clear and careful wording of introductory paragraphs can efficiently direct readers to the central topic without necessarily restricting all information on that topic to one article. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as finding existing articles, Category:Bears has some articles on brown bears that aren't listed in the brown bear article itself (and there is also a Category:Grizzly bears). It might be useful to have a Category:Brown bears if all of these articles are going to be kept. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Guys, there is a Category:Brown Bears, but it includes articles about the various sports teams with that name. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for you most useful input. I was not aware of these policies.

When WP has 20-50 articles on one species then the Reader and the editors become confused. Is there a policy regarding how to unify 50 articles all on brown bears? One idea would be to require that all begin with "Brown bears" or "brown bear subspecies" or "brown bear clades"? Raggz (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This looks like quite a project. Seconding Animalparty’s words, if reliable secondary sources have enough (notable) info on a subtopic, then that subtopic should have its own article. Looking at it from the other direction, when there is enough information to bloat a parent article, it can be split off into subtopic daughter articles. (Think of how long the Brown bear article would be if the information in 30 articles the length of the Himalayan brown bear were added to it.) Oops, Brown bear is already pretty long.

In terms of merging the articles too short or not notable enough to stand on their own, see WP:Merging. The discussion is centralized at the target page (Brown bear) and notifications are placed on all the pages to be merged into the target page. It looks like there’s a template that does this automatically if you enter all the page names into it.

Some other thoughts:

Information common to all the subtopics should be discussed in detail in the parent article and summarized where appropriate in the daughter articles. It looks like Grizzly bear can be shortened quite a bit in this way. Conversely, the most notable information in the daughter articles should be summarized in the parent article, and discussed in detail in the daughter articles. The Himalayan brown bear article like it's pretty good about containing only information specific to the Hiimalayan brown bear (though “subspecies of brown bear” might need to be changed to “population of brown bear living in Nepal, Tibet, …” or whatever is actually correct).

In terms of emphasizing that these are all species of brown bear, one way to do this would be to have the lead sentence state something along the lines of “[x] is a local variety of Brown bear inhabiting [y]”. A WP:Hatnote is another option.

The many different names can be WP:redirected to the appropriate articles, and then the names are mentioned in the article so that the reader knows s/he is in the right place.

Correcting false information on Wikipedia is appreciated. If you think someone might disagree with the change, suggest it on the talk page first.

I’m happy to help with this project.

--Wikimedes (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Raggz, I noticed that in the list of articles you have provided, you have added the template {{Citation needed}} to the leads. Please remove these templates, as they don't belong in the lead section, since the lead does not need citations. If you still feel the need to express your desire to improve the number of citations in these articles, you should use the template {{refimprove}}. Thank you. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, I didn't know this. There is much to learn. Does this apply when they use the wrong (old) name of the species in the lead?Raggz (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If the old name is used, instead of adding that template, just add "The <insert name>, also known as the <insert name>,..." or some variation of that. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 22:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• This GA review[2] of Mexican grizzly bear could need some more input, as it may set precedents to follow. In my opinion, it does not warrant a standalone article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... so where would the GA review stand? Should the Mexican grizzly bear article be merged or not, owing to its current taxonomic status? A second opinion is more than welcome btw. I'm in agreement with some editors, I reckon an article that centralises the subspecies is necessary unless there is a sufficient amount from reliable sources for specific ones. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hope the comment here will attract some more views. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope so too. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If the subspecies - or landrace type, for that matter - is unique enough to justify a standalone article per GNG, then it should not be merged. The article itself isn't up to GA status as it sit today, but I wouldn't merge it. I work in the world of domesticated animals, and on WP, most animal breeds and landraces have articles (about 400 in the case of horses, and who knows how many dogs?). I think that the best approach here is to have an overview ursus arctos or brown bear article - maybe even a list - and then the most notable populations can have their own articles too. I think a category and a navbox is also a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 17:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, it doesn't even seem like there's enough unique information to warrant an article, and it is not comparable to a landrace, it is just about the grizzlies that happen to live in Mexico. In any case, the taxobox should be removed, as it is not a taxon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How long should I wait until I fail the article, as none of my issues have been addressed (as well as some comments mentioned here). Along with that, will there be any consensus on merging some of the subspecies? It's kind of divided right now. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally seven days. FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the stub-class articles should be merged into brown bear, as well as the other subsidiary articles that aren't about a subspecies, but a specific population. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that merging stub class articles back into Brown bear with redirects is pretty non-controversial, but there are others that have extensive articles, notably the Grizzly bear and the Kodiak bear that deserve stand-alone treatment. Montanabw^(talk) 07:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree wit that, and that they should be dealt with one a case by case basis. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's funny how the Grizzly bear article is about the same exact species as the Brown bear article. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Horses on Bianditz mountain

Original – Horses on Bianditz mountain. Behind them Aiako Harria mountain can be seen.

I've nominated this photo of Horses on Bianditz mountain for Featured Picture consideration.

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Horses on Bianditz mountain.

— Cirt (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Crown?

Articles on ancient synapsids should make it clear whether said synapsid was a crown mammal. The article Kuehneotherium wasn't clear about it. Same with Gobiconodon. If the species is a crown mammal, the article should clarify whether it is more closely related to the placentals/marsupials, or to monotremes.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Saber-toothed cat move request

I have requested the article saber-toothed cat be renamed[3] due to scope issues, but the request mainly attracts the opinions of people that appear to have no familiarity with the subject (or zoology in general, for that matter). More knowledgeable opinions would be appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Calf

Folks here should be aware of two discussions at Talk:Calf#Hatnote and Talk:Calf#Move_to_.22calf_.28animal.29.22. Montanabw^(talk) 22:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RM proposed

A RM was filed at Talk:Calf_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_18_October_2015. Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions welcome on species-article writing handbook for university students

Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on a brochure - found here - about editing species articles, including animals, plants and fungi. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of cetaceans for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. sst✈^discuss 18:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article and FAC

I just wanted to stop by to introduce Corinne; she'll continue to help out at TFA and will be focusing for now on WP:PLANTS, WP:MAMMALS and WP:FUNGI. She'll also be helping out with prose reviews at FAC, and I'm available to answer questions about FAC or TFA any time. - Dank (push to talk) 16:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Afrotheria, Xenarthra

Of the four main clades of placental mammals, two (Euarchontoglires, Laurasiatheria) have lots of extant species, while two (Afrotheria, Xenarthra) have only a few ( < 100 each). Can someone add information on why two of the clades were very successful, while two were not so successful?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (Monachus)

"Monachus" is the genus for just the Mediterranean monk seal, the other two are in the Neomonachus genus, but the Monachus article talks about all monk seals. It can't do that because the genus Monachus does not comprise all three species. Either the article's name has to change to "Monk seal" or we split it into "Monachus" and "Neomonachus". In two days, I'll move the article to "Monk seal" if there aren't any objections. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 23:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think it would be best to move the article to the title "monk seal", with both Monachus and Neomonachus as redirects, for now. Splitters may object, insisting that every node on every clade needs a devoted article, but since the genus Neomonachus was erected very recently [4], and given that the article Monachus is well developed already (why chop away?), i think it would be more prudent to discuss each genus within this article. Note: Discussions on Wikipedia (a voluntary project) often take more than 2 days, and the lack of input within such a time does not necessarily mean an action would be unopposed. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll move it then Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not letting me move it because the page "monk seal" already exists (but it's just a redirect of Monachus). I need some help on this. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

GAR

Bottlenose dolphin, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Mule deer map

When reading articles about individual animal species, it seems like I normally see distribution maps in or near the infobox. See White-tailed deer for an example. However, Mule deer has the map halfway down the article. Is there a good reason for doing this one differently? I see nothing at talk about the map, aside from a color-related comment that doesn't address the map's placement. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think the problem with Mule deer can be solved if we insert the legend in a collapsible box. That would reduce the length. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh? What legend, and how will that cause a map to appear? Nyttend (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought you meant the problem is with the length of the map. The collapsible list will not affect the map; it can be used to hide/show the colour legend. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Soon after I asked this question, Dger helpfully moved the map to the infobox; before then, it had been far below that spot. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 12:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

FAC

I've nominated Baleen whale for FAC. If the article meets the FA criteria, it will be promoted. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at some point, but am knee-deep in GA reviews at the moment... FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Dunkleosteus77. I too am preoccupied due to the GA Cup, will try to find time for this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Bushbuck

I am planning to work on this article. The taxonomy, however, looks confusing. While the sources Mammal Species of the World, ITIS and Ungulate Taxonomy consider this as one species - T. scriptus - with 6-7 subspecies, two recent phylogenetic studies (one in 2007 and another the next year) show it is possible that bushbuck could actually be two species. The article as of now says the bushbuck is two species - T. scriptus and T. sylvaticus. I am not sure which classification to show in the taxobox of the article. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Be sure the article "teaches the controversy" and explains both views. I'd list both, with sources and see what happens. Montanabw^(talk) 06:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw, I will surely explain both viewpoints in the Taxonomy section of the article. But the trouble is that you can include only one scientific classification in the taxobox. In the lead, do I say "bushbuck (T. scriptus and T. sylvaticus)" or "bushbuck (T. scriptus)"? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd try "bushbuck (T. scriptus or T. sylvaticus)" perhaps? Montanabw^(talk) 23:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just made a couple of edits in the lead section to hopefully clarify this. You could try using the Elephant article as a guide - it is a similar situation to Bushbuck. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. @Montanabw:, @DrChrissy: I looked up Elephant, and then the case of the African bush and forest elephants. They are historically considered to be the same species but recent evidence supports a split. Yet the articles stick to the earlier classification. If I am to try something similar in Bushbuck, which is traditionally considered one species (T. scriptus, with many subspecies including T. sylvaticus) and for whom the new classification has neither been proved nor accepted, then I should mention the old classification in the taxobox and all these classifications in Taxonomy right? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I was actually thinking that the main similarity was a common name "Elephant=Bushbuck" being used to describe 2 (or more) species. This could be used to help you with taxobox details. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, it is helpful. I will add any more comments once I start working on the article. Thanks! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species is back with more missing articles!

Just a heads up that while the original list of 671 missing species on Wikipedia was near completion in 2014, there were many more missing and I have looked over User:Ucucha/List of mammals's excellent list and added back all the ones that are missing. At the moment there are 449 missing mammal species left to add to Wikipedia. Most seem to be new species or ones that are extinct, though mostly from the Holocene era. Open for anyone that wants to create new articles. I also included the missing tribes, genus, and families that are not complete and kept the references where possible. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 05:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales

Feel free to participate in a discussion I started at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Taxoboxes for even-toed ungulates and whales. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition

Hello All, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Animals tells me that MSW3 "is the preferred taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Mammals." I have looked on the project page and in its Project Navbox under "Resources:Animal naming convenentions" but cannot find MSW3 listed. Could someone advise me if it should it be listed here or is TOL incorrect, please? Regards, William Harris • talk • 23:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It's listed under the Taxonomic resources section on the project page under Animal in the Mammal subsection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think @William Harris: was asking about a preference for MSW3 being documented here, on the WikProject Mammals page. Following MSW3 is discussed extensively in the Mammal talk page archives, but it's not on the main project page. MSW3 is 11 years old and science marches on. Mammals aren't arranged strictly following MSW3 anymore (I'm not sure that they ever all got brought into line with MSW3 in the first place). Wikipedia should follow secondary sources, and probably ought not to be putting up articles on new families following primary sources, but 11 years is a long wait for the secondary source to catch up. Plantdrew (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick replies, Dunkleosteus77 and Plantdrew.

• As suggested, I have looked through the archives and have no doubt if it were put to the vote today there would be more than enough supporters in favor of retaining MSW3. Like you, I too have concerns with MSW3 (2005) and am not convinced there will be a MSW4 released, however I believe that its use should be reflected on the Wikiproject Mammals page. How should we progress this?
• I have a particular interest in Genus Canis (as you both know and I thank you both for your recent article assessments), whose member species can all potentially interbreed (78 chromosomes) and therefore is getting attention from those at the forefront of genomics. Perhaps a way forward is what I have recently reflected at the Alexander Archipelago wolf, with the Taxonomy chapter divided into two halves. The first section is titled "Taxonomic classification" and provides MSW3 and other taxonomic opinions based on morphology. The second section is titled "Phylogenetic classification" and describes what the geneticists have indicated. In this manner, we have been thorough. Until the The International Society for Phylogenetic Nomenclature gets Phylocode operational, this is probably the best that we can provide to readers.

Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe add something along the lines of: "The 3rd edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. The MSW3 classification may be overridden by the conclusions of more recent studies which are widely accepted in secondary sources."

I think it's sensible not to follow MSW3 in your work on Canis where more recent research contradicts it. I'm not quite sure about your subsections; phylogenetic trees can be constructed based on morphological characters (though morphology based phylogenetics is increasingly rare, morphology will continue to be the basis for phylogenies of taxa known only from fossils for the forseeable future). I'd just combine the subsections and have everything under Taxonomy (or Systematics). Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance, Plantdrew. I will also illustrate it with an example link to the Smithsonian. Do you know how the pronouncements of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature fits into this framework? Regards, 20:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@William Harris: The ICZN covers the most objective aspects of taxonomy, but doesn't have much to do with the subjective aspects. The ICZN doesn't say that any particular species concept is right or wrong, but does indicate the appropriate scientific name for a given species concept. The Alexander Archipelago wolf could be a full species, Canis ligoni (though nobody is arguing that it is), a subspecies Canis lupus ligoni, or genetically distinctive population of C. l. nubilus; all of these scientific names are appropriate under the ICZN, which takes no position on which species concept is best. If the Alexander Archipelago, Vancouver Island and British Columbia wolves are treated together as a subspecies distinct from C. l. nubilus, ICZN rules would indicate that Canis lupus crassodon is the name for this entity (as it is the earliest published name of the three). Whoops, I'd just been reading the articles here, then I took a look at the Weckworth paper, which invalidates my previous sentence. Weckworth is calling the British Columbia wolf C. l. fuscus, and that name would be supported by the ICZN for an expanded subspecies that also includes ligoni and crassodon. At Wikipedia, we have the extinct Cascade mountain wolf as C. l. fuscus and their living cousins in British Columbia as C. l. columbianus. That's a bit of a mess to reconcile (the basic problem is that Weckworth isn't using the same species concepts as MSW3/Wikipedia). Plantdrew (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Plantdrew:, I can see how it becomes confused. Now that the coastal wolves have a new and influential supporter, we will see where the "Wayne-pack" take this next, see: Evolution of the wolf#Ecotypes Regards, William Harris • talk • 07:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Marine mammal for GA

I've nominated Marine mammal for GAR. Please start the review at this link. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Bluebuck at FAC

The multi-authored article Bluebuck is not at FAC[]https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bluebuck/archive1&redirect=no, seems there are not many animal reviewers around these days, so have a stab! FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Steller's sea cow

I'm proposing to rename the Steller's sea cow article to Hydrodamalis. See the discussion at the talk page. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mammal for GA

I've nominated Mammal for GAN. Please start the review if you feel like it. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)