Talk:Indian hog deer

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian hog deer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121201013518/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/NewTaxonomy.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/NewTaxonomy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Rapid revert?

@FlightTime: Your edit summary for a revert edit says "unsourced, unexplained", despite the fact that I provided a source for both, and the IUCN status page also has the species under Axis porcinus. Mind explaining why? 74.68.117.176 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Unexplained_reverts_of_a_good_edit_on_Indian_hog_deer. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The change of scientific name from Axis was made in this 2013 edit with no source and a misleading edit summmary ("Cleaning a bit"). It should have been reverted as it was unexplained and unsourced. Today BhagyaMani has just added two 2004 references for the proposal to change the genus, but there is little indication that it has been accepted. MSW3 and Groves & Grubb (2011) both used Axis, as do the IUCN and ASM now. The paper arguing against the Groves species split (Gupta et al, 2018) also uses Axis porcinus. I think the name should be changed back so the Wikipedia article is consistent with all the main authorities. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree! Placement in Axis is also in line with arguments put forward by Red List assessors Timmins et al. 2015. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)