Talk:Eupleridae

Mongoose, not Fossa, the best known.

This part is false:

"...best known is the fossa..."

The word "mongoose" is widely recognized in the English-speaking world, but the average speaker has never heard the word "fossa."

---

True, but most of the animals called "mongooses" belong to Herpestidae, not Eupleridae.N. Pharris 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

True, but some, according to the article anyway, are. And those that are are therefore more "known" than the fossa. Even the Civet the article lists would be more widely understood than the obscure Fossa. Civet "cats" got quite a bit of press for the wierd "cat coffee" story and thier involvement in the origin of a famous disease a few years back, I think it was SARS as I recall. But hardly anyone has heard of the Fossa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the case of SARS used Melogale (Ferret Badgers) as initial host which are mustelidae and totally unrelated (not feliformians that is). I do think that the press' zoolical illiteracy can cause quite a confusion on every relevant aspect.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was the civet that was apparently wrongly associated with SARS. But we digress...Chrisrus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Are the two subfamilies monophyletic? As far as I know before being branched out of Viverridae and placed in their own family, Cryptoproctus was placed in a subfamily of its own, Galidiinae in Herpestinae (before gaining family level status) and only Fossa with Eupleres were in Euplerinae and thought then to be related. Has it been confirmed with molecular studies that these subfamilies are monophyletic?--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

the Malagasy Carnivora are a monophyletic clade closely allied with the mongooses (see here). --Altaileopard (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not dought that Eupleridae is monophyletic. Its further division into these two subfamilies is what I am sceptical with. I am thinking that what may be considered apomorphies of the Galidiinae clade might be synapomorphic traits of the common Eupleridae/Herpestidae ancestor (since Galidiinae were once considered mongooses) and that the Euplerinae subfamily seems like a wastebasket taxon for more derived non-mongoose-like Eupleridae [since with traditional systematics Cryptoproctus was not included in the "Fossinae" group (Eupleres, Fossa)]. It is just a hunch but sounds reasonable I think...--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. Now I understand the problem. I don´t know if the two subfamilies result from DNA studies or if they are rather a heritage from the old systematic.--Altaileopard (talk) 09:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I too wonder this. Has the DNA work been done yet here, so that the book can be closed on the taxonomy? Might we be in for further re-arrangemnt in this corner of carnivora? Chrisrus (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The molecular studies (cited in the Galidiinae) article give strong support for the monophyly of the subfamily Galidiinae (i.e., Galidia, Galidictis, Mungotictis, Salanoia), but not for that of the Euplerinae (Eupleres, Fossa, Cryptoprocta). I think the consensus among recent studies is this:

Eupleridae	Galidiinae Cryptoprocta Eupleres Fossa

In other words, we don't yet know the relations among the three basal lineages of Galidiinae (note that the position of Eupleres, a rare animal, is based on limited data only--one gene, if I recall correctly). Based on these results, it would be more logical to recognize three subfamilies within Eupleridae (Euplerinae, Galidiinae, and Cryptoproctinae), but so far no one has taken this step, I think. Ucucha 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent move to Malagasy carnivoran

I have reverted the recent move to Malagasy carnivoran (original diff). Google searches show that Eupleridae is the more commonly used name when referencing this taxon in reliable sources. If the editor who first moved the article wants to see the article moved, the requested move process is the correct procedure now. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Look: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=malagasy+carnivores&gbv=2&oq=malagassy+car&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i13l2j0i22i30l3j0i8i13i30l5.1985.9595.0.12142.19.15.4.0.0.0.94.1106.15.15.0...0.0...1ac.1.15.heirloom-hp.i5EcaTzT99A. The common name is "Malagassy Carnivore". We are supposed to use the common name, because it's much better for the people to read that way, see WP:COMMONNAME. It's what experts call them when they talk to ordinary people about them. Please think of the effect on the likely reader, not other experts, because that's what these articles are for. Why speak in an uninviting way for the reader when we can write in a friendly way for the people with no loss of precision? Technical terms and jargon are only used when needed for WP:PRECISION. Otherwise, use ordianry words. I'm reverting you tomorrow unless you reply. Chrisrus (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"I'm reverting you tomorrow unless you reply." You should not assume that I put this article on my watchlist. As I suggested, now that you've been reverted such a move is clearly controversial and you should go through the WP:RM procedure instead of a unilateral page move.

"Malagasy carnivoran" and its spelling variants are vernacular names; you're minsinterpreting WP:COMMONNAME. It does not mean, "use the common name/vernacular name/colloquial name of the taxon or organism for the article title." Nothing of the sort is implied. WP:COMMONNAME: "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." One way to estimate usage in reliable sources is by checking hits in Google Scholar and Google Books. The taxon name Eupleridae beats out "Malagasy carnivoran" in both, so I'm sorry but Eupleridae is the most common name for this subject as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that I agree that this should go through WP:RM. Post the request and make your cases there. – Maky ^« talk » 02:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Eupleridae → Malagasy Carnivoran – WP:COMMONNAME Chrisrus (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate all expert contributions to Wikipedia, but we don't write for them, we write for a general audience, and we don't want to read an article about Picea pungens or Ophiophagus hannah; we want to read about the Blue Spruce or the King Cobra. Presenting a tally of Google Scholar hits demonstrates that you don't get this because those papers are written for other experts, but this is written for a general audience so we should use the so-called common name. This group of animals is not spoken of too much, so there is no really common common name because they aren't named commonly in common English, but that's not the point. The point is, people want to read about the splendiferous fairybird, not explabotorioumous plukoloblabapus. It makes for a lame read for the people. Consider the effect on the reader, and remember everything we do is only for the reader, not the experts because they already know all about it and therefore don't need us to tell them anything and so won't be reading it. Chrisrus (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I already pointed out, this is not about experts vs. lay readers, but what name the taxon is referred to by in reliable English-language sources. That's the metric we use. Google hits are one good way to get us to that point, especially if both Scholar and Books align. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Eupleridae at Google Scholar: 144

"Malagasy Carnivoran" at Google Scholar: 15

Eupleridae at Google Books: 360

"Malagasy Carnivoran" at Google Books: 5

Explain how the reader benefits, please. Reader benefit matters, and it is all that does. So please explain your position again in terms of reader benefit. Chrisrus (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The most commonly used name is Eupleridae. Readers benefit by landing on an article titled at a term that is more familiar than a phrase that is found in very few reliable sources. It's also precise and consistent. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

First, both are equally precise and consistent, as neither have any other meaning.

Second, readers unfamiliar with the vernacular term who search for Eupleridae won't suffer upon landing here at all because they will see that term right at the top of the lead, written in bold, so it's still not clear how the reader benefits.

Next, you mischaracterize the truth when you say "very few". In fact, the links you provide show many, man papers that use the term. It is also interesting how they use it. Look for example at this: [[1]]. It uses the English term first and foremost, and then uses the taxon as an appositive and as an expedient. Looking at some of the other articles, I find much the same pattern: the vernacular term is used primarily, and the taxon as an upfront appositive and where stylistically convenient.

In addition, even papers not choosing to use the common name is no reason we should follow suit because they are writing for other experts and we are writing for a general reader and we should care only about our readers and not care about adhering to how articles written for different audiences do things because their audience is different.

Finally, you and eye don't see eye-to-eye about what WP:COMMONNAME means. It's not just about which is most frequently found, because we don't always use the most commonly repeated name because a name may occur repeatedly for some reason specific to certain contexts. It refers to the vernacular name, which should be used unless a technical term results in greater WP:PRECISION because it makes for a better read for the people. So even if it turns out that experts use the term "Phrynosoma douglasii" more frequently than they use the term Pigmy short-horned lizard, it would not therefore follow that we should move that article to that term, because mere frequency is not the point of WP:COMMONNAME, benefit to the reader is the point. Chrisrus (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Greater frequency is exactly the point. It means more people call it the taxon name and thus more people are likely to recognize the taxon name over the vernacular name. It has greater recognizability. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to look at why the taxon is more frequent than the common name in the same papers. What if it's only secondary in the title and lead of the articles you are talking about, like the one from the Journal Nature, but then goes on to repeat the taxon many more times in the body as a sort of shorthand? It's still secondary to the common name, and that primacy trumps pure frequency in terms of titles. If you went by pure frequency within articles, why then, abbreviations would win out, because they are used for expediency more often in articles than the primary name used up front and in leads and titles. That was an extreme and obvious example, but the point stands, it's not just which the books and such use it most often, but which they use most often in a primary way and also which they use when speaking to a general audience, not just to each other.

To follow your logic, if you could show that technical journals repeated the term "Carcharodon carcharias" or "C. carcharias" more often than they did the repeated term Great White Shark in the dry-as-dust writing style of those papers they write for each other, what would be the title of that article, written for The Reader?

And this theoretical person who knows the taxon and not the common name will not be displeased or confused upon landing because the taxon will still be right there in plain view in an upfront and obvious way, so the harm to the reader you base your objection on is not realistic and certainly does not outweigh using the nice vernacular name that improves the way the article reads. I could rest my case on this fact alone, because nothing matters other than what's good for the reader, and you still haven't shown how they'd be harmed by the move. Chrisrus (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're not trying to say that the Google hits for Eupleridae are inflated because it's mentioned more than once in an article; that would be a misunderstanding of the returned numbers. Multiple mentions on one returned item, whether it be a book, webpage, or journal article, still just counts as one hit; multiple mentions in a single item will not increase the hit count. So here we have a situation where only 5 Books items were returned that had your preferred title (vs. 360) and 15 Scholar items (vs. 144). That's roughly a 10-70 fold difference, depending on whether you look at Books or Scholar in favor of the current title. This establishes that the current title is the most frequently used name in reliable sources for this taxon - that's the only important point here that you choose to ignore. Anyway, I've wasted enough time here on such a clear case; I'll let the WP:RM process work but probably won't comment again. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rkitko, Aren't your search results are misleading because you searched for "Carnivoran" instead of "carnivore". And what about the fact that, in the older books and papers, the referent of the term "Eupleridae" was different? Chrisrus (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as argued by Rkitko: "Eupleridae" is currently the more commonly used name; "Malagasy carnivoran" sounds more like a description. Ucucha (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ucucha, how many of the Google Books and Scholar hits he bases his argument on have the same referent as this article? Do not many of them refer to only part of the referent of this article, while the term "Malagasy carnivoran" has always referred to only this referent, precisely? Is that not the reason articles like http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6924/full/nature01303.html and others which refer to the new referent, "Malagasy carnivoran"? Which of the two terms shows consistent WP:PRECISION and clarity? Chrisrus (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
    • "Eupleridae" is a term for a taxonomic group, a family of carnivorans that happens to include all carnivorans native to Madagascar and nothing else—but it is entirely possible that another carnivoran, living or extinct will be found on Madagascar, or that a fossil or even a living euplerid will turn up in mainland Africa. "Malagasy carnivoran" is therefore a useful descriptive term, but now that we can use the formal name Eupleridae, that's what people in reliable sources do. So should we. Ucucha (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • But many of these references he speaks of, books and papers, older than a certain date, before experts understood the relationships between these animals so well, did not refer to all Malagassy carnivorans, but just the Fossa and it's closest, most obvious cousins. Is that not correct? So that is why many of this books and papers mention "Eupleridae" not "Malagasy Carnivoran": at that time, the referent was different; specifically, it had a narrower scope than "Malagasy carnivoran". So it can not be rightfully said that those papers and books had the same referent as the new papers and books that do call them "Malagasy Carnivoran" in a primary way. Look at these books, the are newer: https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=hts&oq=Malagasy+Carnivora&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS452US452&q=Malagasy+Carnivora&gs_l=hp...0i22i30j0i22i10i30l2.0.0.0.3456...........0._n3ueVOmKlE#q=Malagasy+Carnivora&safe=off&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS452US452&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=3pKrUa7_F7i64AOG64CoBQ&ved=0CA8Q_AUoAg&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47244034,d.dmg&fp=a1aab383f51ae476&biw=1301&bih=492 and these papers: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Malagasy+Carnivora&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp= They are all new. "Malagasy carnivoran" is used in them for because of its clarity and precision so the readers understand that all carnivorans native to Madagascar are being referred to, not just some anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 18:53, 2 June 2013
• Oppose. "Eupleridae" is the commonly used name, which is what WP:COMMONNAME is about. "Malagasy carnivoran" is a descriptive term, not a common name (and less commonly used than "Malagasy carnivore"). We could just as well call this article "Fossas and their relatives", but it's basically OR to promote a descriptive term as a common name. Pigmy short-horned lizard is a terrible example; that article is not titled by the commonly used name; the animal is most commonly called a "horned/horny toad." "Horned toad" is going to be less common in Reliable Sources, but is certainly what the general public calls it.Plantdrew (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You are right. The term "Eupleridae" can be found in Google Scholar and Books searches than the term "Malagasy carnivoran". You are right that all it means is "The Fossa family of animals", which didn't used to include all the Malagasy carnivora, as you may know, and as this article teaches, some of the Malagasy carnivora used to be thought part of other families, such as the mongoose family. So there was no taxon for the branch that traceable what looks to have been just a few, or maybe only one single pregnant female that somehow crossed over from Africa: that is to say, any/all those carnivorans native to Madagascar.

You are right that the term is very precise and clear and descriptive and clearly inclusive of all euplerids not just the Euplerinae". Papers such as this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6924/full/nature01303.html and books such as this one: http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199206087.001.0001/acref-9780199206087-e-83 use the term to speak clearly and precisely about these facts because the newest, most advanced discussions of these matters to understand it is best to use the term "Malagasy carnivoran" to refer to this new referent that is the referent of this article that is different from the referent of the term "Eupleridae" in so many of these old books and papers. Chrisrus (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Chrisrus you do have a potentially good point about the scope of the referent recently having changed, but it's not born out by the facts. If the scope of the referent has changed such that Malagasy carnivore is not equivalent to Eupleridae, then the articles should be split. However, this is not the case. The Eupleridae family was not commonly recognized until the recent research which you claim changed the scope of the referent. The fossa and it's closest relatives were previously classified as Viverridae (see [2], [3]).

Restricting search results to those after 2003 (the year the Malagasy carnivore clade was identified) shows that Eupleridae is the commonly used name. I've added "Malagasy carnivore" as a search term, although I must point out that Chrisrus was the one to propose a move to "Malagasy carnivoran" instead of the more widely used "Malagasy carnivore" in the first place.

Eupleridae at Google scholar: 116

Malagasy carnivoran at Google scholar: 15

Malagasy carnivore at Google scholar: 53

Eupleridae at Google books: 74

"Malagasy carnivoran" at Google books: 4

"Malagasy carnivore" at Google books:15

Many of the Malagasy carnivore/carnivoran results use the phrase as a descriptive term, or as a name for a clade equivalent to the family Eupleridae. Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You didn't try "Malagasy carnivora", the plural of "Malagasy carnivoran" Chrisrus (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

And you didn't propose a move to Malagasy carnivora. Here you go.

Malagasy carnivora at Google books: 39

Malagasy carnivora on Google scholar: 181

34 of the 39 book results are in bibliographic sections referencing the 2003 paper by Yoder which identified the clade ("Single origin of Malagasy Carnivora from an African ancestor". Only 1 of the books results is clearly using "Malagasy carnivora" as a common name, rather than a bibliographical reference to the Yoder paper.

I'm not going to bother checking the context of all 181 scholar results. The first result is the Yoder paper, and Google scholar reports 198 citations of that paper. I'll grant that the second result also is using the phrase as a common name, but bibliographic citations of Yoder clearly overwhelm use of "Malagasy carnivora" as a common name.Plantdrew (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't suggest the plural as a title because titles are supposed to be singular, that's all. Anyway, the point is, doesn't it look like the aforementioned facts about the frequency of usage upon which opposition to this move are based should be revisited in light of this research of yours? Chrisrus (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on my research, the most common referent of Malagasy carnivora is the Yoder paper, not the animals. The various M.c. phrases are also used as the informal name for a clade that corresponds to current circumscription of the taxonomic name Eupleridae (and the name was never widely used prior to its current circumscription). Wikipedia articles on clades of organisms are rarely written; most organism articles discuss a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I, too, oppose for the reasons give by Ucucha. There certainly is a possibility that other carnivora made their way to Madagascar but went extinct, and indeed, the small Indian civet (Viverricula indica) has been introduced to the island. – Maky ^« talk » 00:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if that happened, for example, an Old World Monkey would still be an Old World Monkey even if it somehow rafted to and established itself in the New World. The New World Moles include the Gansu Mole. This is pretty much fantastic speculation, however; it's never going to happen. Chrisrus (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.