This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The last line in the introduction reads: "A 2012 study found Arenahippus to be synonymous with Sifrhippus" with a reference to Secord, R. et al. (2012). This study did not find anything taxonomically. It just groups the three Arenahippus-species as recognized by Froehlich (2002) in the genus Sifrhippus, and states in a note (16): "Numerous authors have shown the use of “Hyracotherium” to be invalid for North American equids. Thus, the species “Hyracotherium” sandrae (PETM) and “H.” grangeri (post-PETM) were assigned to the new genera Sifrhippus Froelich 2002 and Arenahippus Froelich 2002, respectively. We found, however, that characters used to separate Sifrhippus from Arenahippus are highly variable and not useful for generic identification. Thus, we refer both species to Sifrhippuspending formal revision." (underlining by me). That is no basis for a synonymy, or to lump two genera together. These authors are not taxonomists. They also did not formally publish a synonymy. They did research on the effect of climate change upon body size, a totally different field of work. Ten years later the 'formal revision' is still 'pending', and as long as this remains the case, Arenahippus and Sifrhippus should not be treated as synonyms. Wikiklaas 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
And in this 2018 paperArenahippus is clearly identified as a sister-group to Sifrhippus. In stead of a 'formal revision', its status was confirmed. Wikiklaas 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Technically, it doesn't matter if the authors are strictly taxonomists or not, just that they argue for their case and that others accept it. But if, as you say, the synonymy has not been accepted by others, that's all that counts. FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your input. I'd say it does matter whether the synonymy is published in a paper dealing with taxonomy or not. And taxonomy was not the subject of the 2012 paper. If I will find the time today or in the next days, I'll deal with this matter. It's not just here but also om my home wiki, which is the Dutch Wikipedia. Wikiklaas 13:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
