Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

ASM missing species (or need taxonomic updating)

Related to the above post, I took an in-depth look at the current ASM Mammal Diversity Database. I identified 796 redlinks out of 6,526 mammals in the database. Some of these are not actually missing, but represent taxonomic changes since MSW3 came out in 2005. Where identified, I included the name the species was published under in MSW3. It's a lot, but good to have a systematic look at what can still be done. Anyone want to work together to update taxonomy in the case of name changes? Enwebb (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Afrosoricida (n=1)
Huetia leucorhina (Calcochloris leucorhinus)  Done changed scientific name and updated iucn ref —  Jts1882 | talk  13:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Cingulata (n=1)
Dasypus mazzai (Dasypus yepesi)

Dasyuromorpha (n=4)
Antechinus mimetes Antechinus vandycki Murexia melanurus (Murexechinus melanurus)  Done Scientific name and IUCN source updated CMD (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Myoictis wallacei (Myoictis wallacii)  Done Article already updated, added IUCN and created redirect CMD (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Macroscelidea (n=1)
Rhynchocyon stuhlmanni

Peramelemorphia (n=1)
Perameles pallescens

Perissodactyla(n=3)
Equus hemippus Equus khur Acrocodia indicus (Tapirus indicus)

Pilosa (n=6)
Cyclopes catellus Cyclopes dorsalis Cyclopes ida Cyclopes rufus Cyclopes thomasi Cyclopes xinguensis Note: The Silky anteater article notes the proposal to elevate three subspecies and recognise three new species, so the genus contains seven species instead of one. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Scandentia (n=4)
Tupaia discolor Tupaia ferruginea Tupaia hypochrysa Tupaia salatana

Editing break

Thanks for doing that. Some updated names (eg. Huetia leucorhina/Calcochloris leucorhinus and Murexia melanurus/Murexechinus melanurus) are updated in the IUCN red list source used in the articles already, so the articles can be easily updated within existing references alongside creating new redirects. CMD (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A question that needs to be address is whether the project accepts this the ASM-MDD as the main source for mammal species, replacing MSW3. MSW3 is clearly out of date and new taxonomy is used in a number of places based on the IUCN or other sources. Given MSW4 doesn't seem likely to appear anytime soon it would be good to have a project policy.

A couple of comments/questions on the above:

1. Are the Artiodactyla chnages the Groves ungulate splits? This seems quite controversial.
2. The two missing Paradoxurus species are due to a split proposed on morphological grounds but hasn't been supported by genetic evidence yet. I discussed this recently with BhagyaMani, the most active editor for small carnivores, here. There doesn't seem to be a clear resolution and the ASM-MDD doesn't say why they accept the new species.
3. Genus Urva was proposed in 2009. We currently have redirects for most "Urva" species.

Overall, the ASM-MDD seems to be favourable to splitters and seems to accept splits with limited explanation. The list above is very useful for flagging potential changes but maybe we need to be cautious and use it to initiate further discussion before making wholesale changes. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I too think that we should be cautious in regards to accepting >proposed< splitters and wait whether and until they will be >recognised< by the resp. IUCN Specialist Groups (SG). Re Paradoxurus: the Small Carnivore SG did not accept the proposed split of P. hermaphroditus and P. zeylonensis in 2016, see the resp. IUCN Red List accounts and arguments therein. Since then, these proposed splits have not been supported by any publication. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Would there be any issues moving forward with the species who have been accepted by the IUCN? CMD (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say that if the IUCN and ASM-MDD both agree we should definitely follow suit. That is probably the best way to use that list above. If the IUCN agrees, use it, if not wait a while, at least until version 2 of the ASM-MDD is formally released.

In practice, I think many of our mammal groups now follow the IUCN, especially when there are recent assessments. Some specialist groups (notably the Cat SG) make formal taxonomic assessments and, at least with cats, the ASM-MDD follows, with one addition. I have some code somewhere that compares the IUCN and ASM-MDD lists using their APIs. I'll see if I can work out how to run it again. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth also keeping track of affected higher taxonomic ranks. Murexia for example will need to be changed from a redirect. CMD (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, some of these "simple" changes need quite a few changes. There are also Wikidata and {{taxonbar}} changes needed. My suggestion is that we annotate the list above to note changes (as I did for the Congo golden mole) or to add notes on current status of the articles and what needs changing (e.g. in Pilosa, I note that the proposal for the split of siky anteater into seven species is already mentioned in the article). That way we can see what has been looked at a reduce duplicated effort. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882, so since Pilosa changes are not yet supported by the IUCN, should we redirect all those taxa names to silky anteater? Enwebb (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure redirects need to be created for all proposed species, but in this case yes. There may not be separate species assessments but the IUCN specialist group does recognise seven species of Cyclopes anteater. I think this would justify creating the articles if anyone was so inclined.

It's odd that the IUCN taxonomy for mammals is scattered. The Cat SG is very good with their taxonomy, the dog group seemingly indifferent, so its quite variable. I think this anteater, armadillo and sloth Specialist Group, along with the the ASM-MDD assessment, is good reason to update the Pilosa taxonomy. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Let me know, it wouldn't be too hard for me to download the mammals from IUCN and merge it with the CSV of redlinked mammals I created last night. Enwebb (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be easier for you to add the IUCN information to your list (at least for me). I wrote my code several years ago and there is always a relearning curve (not to mention the code using the ASM-MDD is soon to be obsolete). —  Jts1882 | talk  13:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882, alright, User:Enwebb/iucn mammals. I cross-checked the redlinks from ASM with the IUCN and made the table, including the taxonomic notes from the IUCN assessment. There were 188 matches. Enwebb (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be easier to track changes on that more reduced list than on here, especially if notes need to be made for future edits. As an example I changed the 3 updated to green. CMD (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I can move that table to this talk page also. Or put it and the above collapsed list on a subpage of WikiProject Mammals. Enwebb (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good course of action--making taxonomic changes based on agreements between IUCN/ASM. Some changes seem pretty uncontroversial (grammar fixes). What about changes like Abrothrix lanosus -> Abrothrix lanosa, Gerbilliscus kempi -> Gerbilliscus kempii ? Enwebb (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take on Raphicerus colonicus, but I don't have access to the source document cited on the Spanish version of the page to verify justification of split from R. sharpei and it has not been picked up by IUCN —GRM (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the many species splits introduced in Grubb & Grove's Ungulate Taxonomy (2011). Most other authorities are not following these splits at this time, including the IUCN and ASM. The Spanish article on Raphicerus colonicus references Handbook Mammals of the World which is written/edited by Groves. I think it might be better to handle the proposed split in the Sharpe's grysbok article until there is more consensus for a split. But this being Wikipedia there is nothing to stop you being WP:BOLD, although be prepared for a challenge. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Boring pages

Surely it's not just me? But pages of mammals with only thumbnail images look positively boring on a desktop!

Maybe it's something to do with accessibility on portable devices... is it?

—GRM (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you give an example? —  Jts1882 | talk  17:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sharpe's grysbok, Cape grysbok, there are others, but I'm supposed to be working :D —GRM (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean either. "Only thumbnail images" as opposed to what? FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm interpreting him as wishing that larger sized images were displayed on the page, rather than you being required to click through. Accessibility on mobile devices is probably relevant, but I suspect that it would get in the way of reading the text even on desktops. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Interpretation correct—GRM (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

List of rabbit breeds not recognized by the American Rabbit Breeders Association or the British Rabbit Council

Would someone with an interest in or a knowledge of rabbits please take a look at List of rabbit breeds not recognized by the American Rabbit Breeders Association or the British Rabbit Council? Taking a really quick look at it, I discovered that an animal hospital in Alexandria, Virginia was being used as a reference for the Alexandria breed of rabbit, and the V-Line breed is incorrectly identified as originating in Egypt. If this is the quality of work, I'm not sure that the list is worth keeping (since we already have List of rabbit breeds), but I don't have time or knowledge to deal with it myself. Thanks in advance. Mo Billings (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed the Alexandria Rabbit section, as well as the V-Line rabbit. DestinationFearFan (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Quenda

The western brown bandicoot, or Quenda, is listed in MSW3 as a subspecies of the southern brown bandicoot (as Isoodon obesulus fusciventer). As this classification dates from 2005, the [https://bie.ala.org.au/species/urn:lsid:biodiversity.org.au:afd.taxon:18b5ba4f-2c53-411e-a0fc-5fb53ba28d80 Australian Faunal Directory] now lists it as a separate species following this 2018 molecular analysis. Is it now time for the quenda to get its own article page on Wikipedia? Loopy30 (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The ASM's MDD now recognises Isoodon fusciventer' and Isoodon peninsulae, both splits from I. obesulus since MSW3. The links give several recent references for the splits. On the other hand, the IUCN doesn't have any assessments for these as species yet. Unfortunately the IUCN's Specialist Group on Australasian Marsupial and Monotreme SG doesn't seem to have a web page with a classification and checklist like other specialist groups (e.g. cats). I'd lean to a yes, though. We can't keep using MSW3 as the guideline, given its cut-off date for new information was 2003 or 2004. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Guinea pig Featured article review

I have nominated Guinea pig for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Asian Herpestes > Urva

That doesn't surprise me much !! That they are finally separated into 2 genera. But why Urva? Hodgson had proposed Mangusta as subgeneric and a little later Gulo as generic names, but used urva only as specific name for the crab-eating mongosse. See end of this page and following. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I cannot explain the choice but Patou et al (2009) claim Urva Hodgson 1837 (one year later) is the oldest available generic name. Either they are unaware or Mangusta or it is not valid for some other reason.

This is an example where the IUZN rules seem to cause more upheaval (i.e. name changes) than necessary. Only two species were out of place in the analysis of Patou et al (2009). The least change would have involved moving H. ichneumon to Galerella and to include Atilax paludinosus in Herpestes (two name changes). But presumably due to rules of precedence, Herpestes gets redefined to include H. ichneumon and the four Galerella species, H. naso is given its own genus (Zenogale) and all the other Herpestes species get moved to Urva. So only H. ichneumon keeps its name and we have 13 or 14 species combination changes), two new/resurrected genera and one abolished genus. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

But basically, you agree that all my effort to fill the Herpestes page was old bare bones for the dogs? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You may have seen in Mongoose#Taxonomy that I moved the Asian mongooses to a new table row for Urva + found Hodgson (1837), in which he described the type specimen. In articles published in the journal of the IUCN Small Carnivore SG since about 2018, they are also referred to as Urva species. Now I wonder whether to also move them from the Herpestes page to a new page Urva (genus) or to wait for the next round of IUCN rl assessments? Your thoughts? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Too many bogus mammalian species in Africa

I keep on coming across species splits where I think hmmm, but some are really egregious. See if anyone agrees...

• Blue Nile patas monkey = this one is just taxonomically incoherent. It's a nomen nudem because it excludes its type from the taxon. The author's Erythrocebus poliophaeus is technically another than that of the Erythrocebus poliophaeus Reichenbach, and thus invalid, as that name is already taken. The paper lacks a formal description of the new taxon, and is thus invalid. The discussion of morphology (of another subspecies) makes little sense. The claim is made that a subjective distributional delimitation of proportion of a population is a taxonomically significant characteristic of that population - bunk. The author states his aim is to fracture a common species into many for legal reasons and that taxonomists are "inert" (to conservation concerns) - uh, taxonomic inflation? The paper concludes with creating another 4 taxa without explanation. All this appears based on 2 grainy photographs someone else took in Sudan! No specimens studied, no DNA, nothing. A year later, he complains to the popular media about taxonomy requiring types -or something. This is simply not a valid species. And the article/common name 'Blue Nile patas monkey' is actually the second of the two proposed by the author for his new taxon.

I think this 'species' needs to be merged with the monotypic nominate. I will move useful text first, if consensus agrees.

• Harnessed bushbuck = note factual accuracy tag since 2017 and talk page. This is actually a really strange one. The editor who split this as a new species on Wikipedia in 2009 was one 'Yoshanm', possibly Yoshan Moodley, the author of all the articles Yoshanm is citing, but if that is the case... what is very strange is that he's making wild claims on Wikipedia that he doesn't make in his scientific articles. Either way, Yoshanm's taxonomic interpretation as two species, phylogenetic claims and morphological ruminations are uncitable to the papers by Yoshan Moodley, who only reorganises the traditional subspecific taxa into two, and has nothing to say about morphology or phylogeny except what I didn't delete -the stripes. If the same person, it's like without a senior author to hold him back he was free to theorise away in public here... He also appears to have invented new 'common' names for the bushbuck: imbabala and kéwel and harnessed antelope (calque from French, was then perverted to 'harnessed bushbuck' by another understandably confused Wikipedia editor). There's a reference to a letter in an antelope newsletter by Yoshan Moodley, which includes some names in other languages for the (sub-)species, which has then been used as basis to rename the two new 'Wikipedia species', but really... you can't just come along and decide everyone has call rabbits in Britain 'bwyllewenddellcywydd' (fake Welsh) because you feel like it. Apparently you can when it's in Africa. Why even rename the nominate species anyway?

I think this purported 'species'/nominate subspecies article needs to be merged with the original article. I will move useful text first, if consensus agrees. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If these common names were made up, they shouldn't be merged, they should be deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

In a 2009 letter sent to Gnuletter, a newletter, Yoshan Moodley notes 'kéwel' is the name for bushbuck in Wolof (a Senegalese language). 'Yoshanm' writing Wikipedia a few weeks later took that to mean everyone in Africa/the world needs to call common bushbuck 'kéwel' now. Extra stupid, Moodley might be mistaken - kéwel appears to be a misspelling of Wolof kéwél, which means 'gazelle', not bushbuck -kéwél appears derived from the Arabic word gazel. Based on the history of the Tragelaphini article -on 15 July 2010‎ someone added the new Wikipedia species and renamed bushbuck as 'kéwel', apparently based on the incorrect article. Now, in 2021, the article is telling me this:

Below is the alternative taxonomy based on Willows-Munro et al. (2005) and Groves and Grubb (2011), with species and subspecies names following Castelló (2016) from Bovids of the World.

The kéwel name and the two species interpretation were first invented on Wikipedia in 2009, so Willows-Munro et al. (2005) cannot cite this list, Groves and Grubb (2011) don't either, and if we believe the Wikipedia text above, Castelló (2016) is basing his work on OR in Wikipedia. Actually I question if Wikipedia is accurately reflecting Castelló, but don't have access. For seven years after 2010, the Wikipedia text stated there were seven species based on the references above, except Castelló, and then listed eight. Actually, I'm just going to go ahead and change it =even if Castelló did use Wikipedia as a source and recognised a new bushbuck species, the text is incorrect, because Willows-Munro, Groves and Grubb don't. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh wait, Groves and Grubb is Ungulate Taxonomy ... still the common names are not vernacular, but based on Wikipedia. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a case for both as species.

• The IUCN and ASM's Mammal Diversity database both recognise Erythrocebus poliophaeus as a species with the common name Heuglin's Patas Monkey. They also list Blue Nile Patas Monkey and Blue Nile Hussar Patas Monkey, respectively, as alternative common names. The ASM-MDD also indicates that the species is recognised in the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World, although I don't have the book to verify this. There is a good case for a page name change to Heuglin's Patas Monkey, but the species status is supported by two or three secondary sources, which are candidates to replace MSW3 as the favoured project taxonomy source. . If there are questions about these assessments, then we need secondary sources discussing the issue.
• Tragelaphus sylvaticus is recognised as a species by the ASM's Mammal Diversity database and (again unverified) by the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World. The ASM uses Southern bushbuck for this species and Western bushback (or Harnessed Antelope) for the common name of Tragelaphus scriptus. The IUCN doesn't currently recognise the split but acknowledges the proposal. The reason for the split was originally the divergent lineages in the mt-DNA, but scriptus and sylvaticus are sister monophyletic groups in nuclear DNA studies (Hsssanin et al, 2018; Rakotoarivelo et al, 2019. These authors are split on whether they could be recognised as a species, with Hsssanin et al (2018) supporting species recognition and Rakotoarivelo et al (2019) opting for "chromosomal races within a single bushbuck taxon". Both these studies post-date the IUCN assessment.

In short, we have secondary sources supporting both species, although I'd support page moves for both. A potential merger of the western and southern bushbacks should be revisited when the IUCN update their assessment to take accound of the new nuclear DNA evidence or if we ever decide on a new recommended taxonomy for the mammal project. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Heuglin's Patas Monkey

Dumb idea to put two subjects in one section -splitting. Thanks for looking up that. I will update the articles with these references. Jts1882, Gippoliti is simply the worst taxonomic paper I've read in years. Both sources refer to Gippoliti as authority for re-recognising this taxon, but ASM-MDD incorrectly cites a holotype Gippoliti excludes from his circumscription. At least I'm happy to read that the IUCN grudgingly repeats my story in their taxonomy section, but for some reason recognises this non-species anyway ...sorry to say, but this group is often not credible, they recognise anything just in case. In principal we are dealing with two taxa here:

• Erythrocebus poliophaeus Reichenbach (1862): from Darfur, 1 collected, synonymised with patas ssp. patas over 100 yrs ago, recognised as new species at the time because specimen a had more greyish coat than other specimens in Germany at the time. Black nose.
• Erythrocebus poliophaeus Gippoliti (2017), non Reichenbach: No holotype given by Gippoliti. Two unambiguous photographs. Syn. ssp. pyrrhonotus pro parte, perhaps albigenus, excludes E. poliophaeus Reichenbach. No taxonomically significant genetic or behavioural differences with other patas monkeys known. Morphological story confused: same as pyrrhonotus in Kenya -(sometimes) white nose, (sometimes) darker fur, white moustache, but different than the average monkey in the rest of Ethiopia, Darfur and Uganda (not all monkeys in a population may exhibit all these characteristics). Actual specimens or live monkeys never studied. Most important characteristic is that Gippoliti thinks it only occurs in eastern Al Qadarif and Sennar wilayati and neighbouring edges of Ethiopia. Should actually be named Schrödinger's patas monkey, the species of an individual monkey is determined by the position of the observer: if you see it in the above regions, it's E. poliophaeus, if it wanders out and you see it there, it's E. patas.

Practical suggestions:

• 1. Move article name to Heuglin's patas monkey, that is the main suggested common name in all three sources recognising this we've seen.
• 2. Adjust taxobox? Get rid of it? Add note? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to the common name favoured by the authorities. I see no reason to remove the taxobox. This species is recognised by reliable secondary sources (see my comment above). You may be right in your assessment of Gippoliti et al (2017) but we need reliable sources for Wikipedia. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine, how about this: I'll use the IUCN as reference for the confused taxonomy. I'll use the article to describe two taxa: Gippoliti's and Reichenbach's -just spilt each section in two subsections, that resolves the problems with divergent descriptions, synonyms and distributions. MDD simply made a mistake here with the type (reliable doesn't mean always right). If you'd look it over (to remove my POV disgust at the situation) and move it, great. Gimme some time, though, I'm trying to finish something about an African national park, which is why I ended up down this wormhole. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bushbuck

Even with the two articles above, the majority of the sources consider these two taxa as subspecies which cannot be distinguished except genetically. Even the photos of a West African 'kéwel' with prominent striping which someone had added, turned out to actually be taken in Kruger Park, South Africa. Only Hassanin et al. elevate them to species. Practical suggestions:

• 1. Get rid of kéwel, imbabala =bogus common names
• 2. Get rid of article about harnessed bushbuck (another bogus common name), refer to this taxon as 'western bushbuck' from now on, merge. Nothing except genetics differentiates these taxa, most sources see them as subspecies, both can better be described in one article. What should of happened is that the Cape subspecies should have gotten a page, not have it renamed, but whatever.
• 3. Rename Cape bushbuck back to Bushbuck again, and redirect Cape bushbuck to appropriate section in 'Bushbuck'
• 4. Remove factual accuracy tags (refers to the names and weird false claims I already deleted, see talk), update the Tragelaphini with yet more taxonomic interpretations -people had changed the species lists there without changing/adding references, so that it looked like certain sources followed certain interpretations they didn't. Was confused there for a bit. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately people make changes without proper sourcing far too often and this can be confusing and waste time.

You have raised objections and there is an ongoing discussion. You seem intent on making changes based on your own interpretations of primary sources rather than reliable secondary sources. As I said above, some secondary sources support this species so we need others saying something difference so we can gain consensus for a change. I'd support a move to western bushback and add harnessed antelope as an alternative name for now. Hassanin et al (2018) conclude there are phenotypic as well as genetic and cytogenetic reasons for the species split, while Rakotoarivelo et al (2019) don't support a species split, partly because the phenotypic differences breakdown in the hybrid zone.

Some of your changes are not helping. The article now begins The bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus scriptus') is the nominate taxon of the bushbuck. A common name cannot be a nominate taxon and a bushback being a type of bushback doesn't tell us anything. It is far more informative to start the article by telling the reader than the bushback is an antelope, as it did before your changes. The article needs to address different opinions on the scope of the species using sources for both or all interpretations. The current status quo is two articles for species supported by secondary sources, so the two species interpretation should be stated first, followed by the single species interpretation. If there is consensus for a merge then this would change. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

On #1, I do agree with you about the problematic nature of the names kéwel and imbabala. They were added to the article by User:Yoshanm on 11 April 2009 without a source or explanation. This user's only contributions to Wikipedia were a series of 8 bushbuck edits on 11-12 April 2009. It's hard not to conclude that the user is the Yoshan Moodley who is author of several articles on the genetics and biogeography of the bushback. No conflict of interest (WP:COI) was declared.

One of User:Yoshanm's edits was the creation of the Harnessed bushbuck article on 12 April 2009. This was supported by three references, all including Yoshan Moodley as one of the authors. One of these, a brief report by Torsten Wronski and Yoshan Moodley in a IUCN newsletter (that was not published until September 2009), used the vernacular names kéwel and imbabala, but with no comment on the background to the names (e.g. a name used in a local language). This article should not have been created without a independent secondary source. However, we find ourselves in a difficult situation where the current status quo (the species split) can be supported by reliable sources that have been published in the 12 years since the article creation, even though the initial split was made by an editor with a presumed conflict of interest and no independent sources. The existence of the species Tragelaphus sylvaticus is supported by Groves and Grubb's Ungulate Taxonomy (2011), the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (volume 2, 2011), the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (2020) (all recognising addition bushbuck species), Hassanin et al (2018) and the ASM's Mammal Diversity Database (v 1.31, 2021). I think it should be retained but with the common names used by those sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading Hassanin (Moodley is senior author), it's hard not to conclude User:Yoshanm is Yoshan Moodley -as in 2009 he added (incorrect interpretations of, it now turns out) stuff which was only published in 2018. Note none of the original references by Moodley et al. support the species split, nor does Rakotoarivelo et al., at this moment the only reference which does is Hassanin et al. The argument isn't that great; it's like saying Aborigines aren't human because they contain a shred of Denisova genetics, and populations in the middle become taxonomically problematic hybrids. And they only tested 7 samples, so we do not know if the new introgression work corresponds with the 19 mDNA groups split (and thus the geographical distribution of the taxa) in Moodley's older works.

Either way, it makes more sense to me then to have either 1 or 3 articles, than 2 -one for 'bushbuck' in general, with a section discussing the proposed split/subspecies/infraspecific diversity, or one for bushbuck and two articles for the supposed species/subspecies. 99% of all sources about the bushbuck will not specify to which taxon the information applies, and no behavioural differences are known, so it makes more sense to add such information to an article about 'bushbuck' in general. Practically it's also annoying to have 2 articles, for a large swath of Africa it is now basically impossible to known what bushbuck taxon occurs locally - all links from National Parks and whatever in these cases need to go to a 'bushbuck' in general article.

As to my conduct, hey, I edited the articles based on the sources, and haven't since starting this discussion. There was no credible unique vernacular name given for the 'kéwel' species proposal, so I left it as 'bushbuck', as that is what everyone is calling bushbuck... we can change it to 'western bushbuck' based on these new sources. I wanted some consensus about what to do here before continuing; the text is adjustable depending on the 'status quo'.

As for Groves and Grubb, I've read their interpretation. Their Tragelaphus sylvaticus is different, however, than that we're talking about above. They split the bushbuck into eight species based on geography more than any real morphological or genetic differences. MDD chose to recognise the species based on Groves and Grubb here, but decided to reshuffle the eight taxa into two, in a different order than Moodley, which means the distributions of the taxa are different depending on the authors. New information about introgression from ancient hybridisation does explain the genetic diversity MDD notes from G&G. I don't have Handbook of the Mammals of the World, but it is my experience that Groves and Grubb were largely followed.

Right now there are 5 taxonomic proposals for the bushbuck: 1.) conventional, 1 sp., ~11 sspp.; 2.) 2 subspecies -Moodley (2007, 2009), Rakotoarivelo; 3.) 2 spp., Hassanin; 4.) 2 spp., 8 sspp. -diff. circumspription, MDD; 5.) 8 spp., G&G.

The word imbabala is Xhosa, btw, according to an old Yoshanm version of the bushbuck article -I first thought it was Zulu, note the same noun prefix as 'impala'. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we can conclude that User:Yoshanm is Yoshan Moodley and shouldn't have split the bushbuck into two species back in 2009. But I think that now that there have been two articles for 12 years and that secondary sources now support two species, we should retain the status quo pending further information (e.g. new studies or a new IUCN assessment). Also Moodley doesn't appear to be senior author on Hassanin et al (2018). The names Moodley gave the species should be omitted. The three articles is an interesting idea, but perhaps best left until there is further support for the two species to avoid having to merge three articles.

My understanding is that HMW follows G&G. The ICMW also followed suit "after strong discussion with the production team and other editors" (see here). Version 1 of MDD also followed G&G but in version 1.2 they decided to exclude G&G species that weren't supported by further evidence (see subjective decisions). They accepted Tragelaphus sylvaticus to cover four of the G&G species: sylvaticus, meneliki, fasciatus and ornatus, but not decula (as you'd expect based on the G&G clusters). This might not be the final decision. The MDD editors seem open to questions and suggestions so perhaps you might want to ask them about this. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, I just looked at Ungulate Taxonomy and see G&G used harnessed bushback for the Tragelaphus scriptus cluster (so that vernacular name can be sourced) and keeled bushback for the Tragelaphus sylvaticus cluster. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Moodley =not senior author on Hassanin, you're right, my mistake. If harnessed bushback can be cited fine, although I like 'western' better, harnessed is a calque from the French name for 'bushbuck', and all bushbuck are 'harnessed'. But it should be cited, people just make up stuff on Wikipedia. Also, technically, all of the common names proposed by G&G for all the 8 species now included in the two taxa would be synonymous and equally applicable! This is what you get for not using Latin.

MDD didn't include decula from Ethiopia? Well, that clears up a bunch! That means they are following the mtDNA stuff from Moodley 2007/2009, and put them in line with Hassanin (although they only used 7 samples). Why G&G moved it in the first place appeared completely arbitrary to me.

Morphology? G&G on Moodley & Bruford (2007): The significant separation in their phylogenetic tree is between the T. scriptus and T. sylvaticus clusters; interestingly, T. decula is well within the former, and part of the T. bor subclade. The morphological affinities of T. decula are so very clearly with the T. sylvaticus group that a hybrid status seems the most plausible solution, conjecturing that formerly the Ethiopian plateau was occupied in suitable areas by forestliving bushbuck of the T. scriptus group. As the climate changed, T. sylvaticus bushbuck moved northward, replacing the indigenous phenotype by nuclear swamping (the larger, more sturdily horned males dominating the smaller, weaker- horned indigenous males).

Some other mammals show a similar NW/SE split separated by the rift valley and the Zaire rainforest. The lion is one and they also have a hybrid zone in Ethiopia. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, but Moodley in 2009 puts it in scriptus based on their reading of the genetics, and state that morphologically, it clearly belongs there, being the least 'striped'. That G&G switched it I found odd. G&G started with the horn stuff, but I don't know. Is a phenotype like that really applicable across the entire population? Or with a circumscription based on that character alone would you need to accept both species occurred sympatrically in gradients? How many skulls did G&G study, or are the differences stated for their species based only on the types? If it's a hybrid, as G&G suggest, shouldn't decula be classified as a nothospecies? I don't have G&G, sorry for the ignorance. I suppose I can use it in the article. It's also unclear to me how G&G treat the mixed population in Gabon thereabouts. But as I say below, this taxonomic nitpicking stuff is a bit involved, an article describing the bushbuck sensu lato would handle most of the info. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My reading of G&G is that the decisions were largely based on Moodley & Bruford (2007) and that the Moodley et al (2009) material was added at a later stage. Pure speculation on my part, but I think this could explain some inconsistencies. Publication is a slow process. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

But I don't like your suggestion of maintaining the status quo. Right now none of the stated information (regarding behaviour, ecology, whatever) on bushbuck can be verifiably prescribed to either taxon. For a huge amounts of species lists of parks, countries, whatever, it is impossible to know which of the two taxa occur. The English word 'bushbuck' has simply applied to a natural, interbreeding group of antelopes for a century, and practically all sources describe that concept, whether people now see them as 1, 2 or 8 species: a wikilink should describe that group, editors shouldn't be forced to choose. Even if there were two articles, it's the wrong way around. The word 'bushbuck' should lead to the nominate, traditional taxon, and there we should have all the info pertaining to bushbuck, with a chronological taxonomy story detailing all the ridiculous interpretations of late. There should be a disambiguation thing at the top. The 'Cape bushbuck' should just be a short article dealing mostly with this species/subspecies proposal -purported differences with the nominate, history of taxonomy, different distributions depending on author. Sections on behaviour or whatever should refer to the main article.

Otherwise, the most verifiable thing would be to delete all info, as we don't know to which taxon it pertains, or duplicate it at both articles with a disclaimer that it might not actually apply.

It would be nice if someone else commented, hard to get consensus with just two. On the other hand, this conversation is pretty complicated. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, is that an article to which the wikilink 'bushbuck' leads, should be describing T. scriptus sensu lato. If a source about Ngorongoro specifically identifies it as a specific variety of bushbuck, then that's where the link should lead. Right now, all the links to bushbuck in West Africa go to 'Cape bushbuck'. And even if we tried to 'fix' it, it's not entirely clear to which taxa the bushbuck in central and even East Africa belong, depending on these very recent taxonomic interpretations. There is also clearly a broad hybridisation/intergrade zone. It's also a bit hopeless, say G&G come up with a new book in a few years, you'd have to curate all the links again. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Rakotoarivelo et al (2019) might shed some light. The paper comes down in favour of a single species. But scriptus and sylvaticus are reciprocally monophyletic, and have different karyotypes (pending investigation of additional populations). Lavateraguy (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input. Yah, monophyly, sure, but the taxon sensu lato is also monophyletic with respect to the other species, so it's a question of degree. Granted, the different karyotypes is weird, but see my comment about anoa above. Yes, it's annoying these studies have such small sample sizes -I just ready a study about African snakes. One author had collected 4,000 specimens of only one genus throughout Africa over four decades. Imagine! Bouncing around those dirt roads with jars of snakes! The other collected 3,500 samples from musea, and they sequenced it all (everything needed, in any case). And then made only two well-argued taxonomic changes. Lots of distribution changes though. What I got from it though is that all these rare or localised colour morphs usually don't mean much, scale counts is more useful. Full treatments for taxa based on multiple cited specimens, keys, infraspecific variation... why can't mammalogists do that? Take the 'Cape bushbuck', a proper redescription/taxon treatment was never actually made. If we are to rely on the original 18th century description, then a large percentage of the bushbuck in South Africa are not 'Cape bushbuck'.

As I see it, Rakotoarivelo et al tips the taxonomic opinion to my side: this is the most recent work, and it means a preponderance (3 vs 1) of recent phylogenetic studies advocate a 1 species, 2 subspecies concept. G&G... this is basically an already dated non-standard reading of someone else's work. The morphology in G&G is somewhat disproved by the photos currently in the article, and their distributions are too fuzzy. It would be best to relegate their opinion to the "taxonomic history" section. MDD's current reorganisation of G&G's 8 species using Moodley2009 into two species is basically another taxonomic opinion, but it is not completely contradictory with the 2 subspecies concept. Personally, subspecies are a better place to put such populations, unless you can truly prove they are reproductively isolated and different. The problem remains that an inter-gradation/hybridisation zone appears to exist.

I think this nonsense may all be caused by trying to tie a common name to a taxon. We can all agree on this fact, right? = In Africa there is an antelope called a 'bushbuck'. In that vein, what I'm going to do is copy&paste a provisional article together called bushbuck2 to show you all what I mean. Then there may be another article for the Cape version, not the other way around. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)