Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Himalayan shrew and its genus article

Hi, and hope you're well. Under what conditions should the genus and its only species share an article? For example, Soriculus says that the Himalayan shrew (Soriculus nigrescens) is the only extant member of the genus, though other species were once included here and there are also several fossil species included here. Thank you in advanced for your time and attention. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

If a genus has only one extant and several extinct species, it's not unprecented to have a separate article for the genus, but its also common for there only to be an article about the extant species with the genus being a redirect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Basically, if there's enough data that is unique and distinct for multiple articles, then we probably should have multiple articles. If there isn't any available data to have multiples, then we should probably have one. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your swift replies! I'll leave it alone for now; I don't feel confident enough to carry out a merge. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the information present, the two articles shouldn't be merged at all. The present situation at the species article was a result of an incomplete split in Sep 2021, where the information on extinct species and related genera remained untouched in the species article. I have now edited both articles to reflect the different scope of each. Loopy30 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks great. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Mogera edit : is this okay ?

Replace part of the intro in a new section "Description", by that I mean moving this to the section "Description" that would be erected :

"Moles in this genus differ from Old World moles in the genus Talpa in having one fewer pairs of lower incisors and in having larger hind premolars in the lower jaw.

 Part I would add (need agreement) :

Moles of this genus varies in sizes. Kawada (2016) made a morphological revision of the Japanese mountain mole and proposed the actual position of this species (then known as Euroscaptor mizura) in Oreoscaptor. In this study, the author presented and compared morphometrics of [O]. mizura with 17 other species of talpids, which included 8 species of the genus Mogera. Some information from this study on their head-body length and tail length (in millimeters) and their weight (in grams) are presented in the table below.

Basic morphometrics values of some species of the genus Mogera.

Species	Numbers of individuals (n)	Head-Body Length (X, mm)	Head-Body Length (Range, mm)	Tail Length (X, mm)	Tail Length (Range, mm)	Weight (X, grams)	Weight (Range, grams)
M. etigo	13	164.62	157.0 - 170.5	26.04	23.0 - 29.5	123.40	94.9 - 161.5
M. imaizumii	97	126.64	102.0 - 154.0	15.93	8.5 - 22.5	58.74	36.31 - 109.1
M. insularis	12	130.09	112.0 - 139.5	9.32	6.5 - 11.5	57.74	42.0 - 72.5
M. kanoana	11	121.91	113.0 - 133.5	11.09	8.5 - 13.5	39.91	23.5 - 59.0
M. latouchei	17	122.26	116.0 - 130.0	13.94	12.0 - 16.0	39.56	33.0 - 51.8
M. robusta	5	154.10	147.0 - 165.0	18.10	16.0 - 20.5	108.62	95.9 - 127.3
M. tokudae	5	145.92	131.5 - 163.0	26.12	23.0 - 27.5	102.60	82.5 - 120.5
M. wogura	201	158.76	123.0 - 180.0	19.14	11.5 - 29.0	117.25	62.9 - 178.0

Thank you for your time Gimly24 (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

First sentence should be cited and "varies in size", not "varies in sizes", but otherwise it looks fine. I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to ask about that addition. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. "Moles of this genus varies in size", it's not said/implied in the study but you see that there is "2 groups" of Mogera (imaizumii, insularis, kanoana and latouchei are much smaller and the larger species : etigo, robusta, tokudae and wogura). The whole paragraph cite Kawada's study. I could remove the first sentence and add a citation after the 2 sentences ([...] which included 8 species of the genus Mogera.

I'm not sure why you felt like you needed to ask about that addition

I don't know why, thinking of it. Lol. Maybe fear of it being too precise and "copying a study" (by taking a few morphological data informations) was the thing. lol. Gimly24 (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

"Moles of this genus vary in size" would be most correct. Subject = Moles, so must match verb to the plural noun. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

yes. Thank you for noting this. I looked it up afterwards on google and depending on the circumstances, one of the two applies. Gimly24 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Completed page and re-organized the table in the process :) Gimly24 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Are individual animals page in the WikiProjectMammals ?

Like for example 926F (Spitfire), O-Six, OR-7, etc ?

Are they subject to assessments by WikiProject:Mammals ?

What about repopulations and reintroductions of mammals pages ?

Ex : Repopulation of wolves in California, Repopulation of wolves in Colorado, Repopulation of wolves in Midwestern United States, History of wolves in Yellowstone, Wolf reintroduction, Reintroduction of beavers to Europe, etc

If they are, they should be assessed or at least been given "the project have yet to rate this page"

Thanks. Gimly24 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

My inclination is to not add WikiProject Mammal banners to individual animals (or breeds) that could fall under a subproject (cats, dogs, equines, cetaceans, primates, rodents, bats). I think most of the editors who participate in WikiProject Dogs are interested in canids in general, so the wolves would be accepted in the scope of that project.

I've added WikiProject Mammal banners to newly-created articles I've come across on individual animals and breeds that don't fall under any existing subproject, but I don't think anybody has made a systematic effort to tag all possibly relevant individuals and breeds for WikiProject Mammals. There are articles on individuals (not just mammals) tagged for WikiProject Animals that could be refined to a more precise project.

I'm not opposed to tagging individual wolves for WikiProject Mammals (in addition to Dogs), but if individuals are considered in scope, there are a bunch of articles out there that haven't been tagged for any WikiProject (to pick one example, the individual giant panda Bao Bao), and it would be more productive to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks much for your reply ! I agree with you on the priorization of pages that do not have any projects related/attached to them, like you said as an example Bao Bao. I would suggest giving a Wolf reintroduction & Reintroduction of beavers to Europe the tag for sure as they treats mammals reintroduction (as a general example of mammalian reintroduction]]. I might make a list of some individual animals like Bao Bao, who got no WikiProjects Related tags. To see. :) Gimly24 (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I looked up List of giant pandas & , and i found that, along with Bao Bao, these pandas had either no wikiproject attached or in some, even existing talk pages :

• Bao Bao
• Jia Yueyue and Jia Panpan
• Kang Kang (giant panda)
• Lan Lan
• Meng Xiang

I will do a large survey of individual animals and update this later. You could find my progress in one of my many (and messy) sandbox. Gimly24 (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gimly24:, you should use PetScan for this. Here is a search for individual bears that don't have a WikiProject Mammals banner (Category:Individual giant pandas is a subcategory of Category:Individual bears). Note that the search terms are on two different tabs, "Categories" (depth=2, categories=Individual bears) and "Templates&links" (has none of these templates=WikiProject Mammals, use talk pages instead=checked). Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thank you for sharing this asset. It will certainly help. However, as you said in an earlier, most pages on individuals animals have multiples projects related to them. For instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing covers almost all horses present in the page List of leading Thoroughbred racehorses, but not all. And we said, we'd prioritize those without any wikiprojects.

[..]there are a bunch of articles out there that haven't been tagged for any WikiProject (to pick one example, the individual giant panda (Bao Bao), and it '''<u>would be more productive</u>''' to work on tagging those than adding additional tags for articles that already have some.

as of now, i found that these pages have no wikiproject and/or talk pages [Edited : see bottom of the page/my next to last edit of this talk page] :

Gimly24 (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You can modify the Petscan search to exclude articles with other specified WikiProject banners; I went with bears for the example because I'm confident those won't be tagged for cats/dogs/horses (but individual bears might be tagged for a project with a geographic focus). If Petscan is being used to find cats/dogs/horses that aren't tagged for ANY project, I'd certainly set the search criteria to exclude the cat/dog/equine (and horse racing) WikiProject banners. Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that make much more sense. Yes, it would be way easier that way. Thank you very much, Plantdrew😊 Gimly24 (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

so i think i'm mostly done, we got here User:Gimly24/sandbox#Individual_Animals_with_no_WikiProject_Attached

Individual(s) :

• 5 pandas
• 4 bears
• 5 chimpanzees
• 5 other primates
• 3 cats
• 15 dogs
• around 96 horses
• 8 individual bovines
• 1 individual sheep
• 1 goat & tiger (they are together in a page)
• 2 killer whales
• 1 blue whale
• 8 elephants
• 2 wolves
• 9 others individuals animals that are mammals

Specific mammal(s) or groups of mammals related (29 pages)

Breeds :

• 17 Cattle
• 8 goats
• 10 sheep
• 1 pony
• 1 water buffalo
• 1 wolf-dog
• 6 dogs
• 1 pig

Others (32 pages)

My gawd, was it long

Oh, and these three pages should be in this WikiProject ASAP :

• Eastern Mindanao gymnure
• Geniohyus
• Thyrohyrax

Thanks a lot to @Plantdrew Gimly24 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you post an example of a page with this ? That's not very clear...

Thank you. - Gimly24 (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Sankebetsu brown bear incident, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Requested move at Talk:Felid hybrid#Requested move 28 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Felid hybrid#Requested move 28 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Should Setirostris be moved to common name?

Most mammal species are placed at their common name, but unusually this one is not, as various common names exist. But it should be possible to go with the most widespread one, which appears to be hairy-nosed Freetail Bat. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a fair number of bat species with scientific names as titles. Many bats (and rodents) didn't have any proposed vernacular/common names prior to the publication of Mammal Species of the World. The article on the family Molossidae is titled free-tailed bat, and many species have "free-tailed bat" as part of their title ("Northern freetail bat" is the only article that has "freetail" in the title rather than "free-tailed bat").

So "freetail bat" vs. "free-tailed bat" (vs. "freetail-bat" as IUCN has it) is one issue, and "bristle-faced" vs "hairy-nosed" is another. This species was only described in 2008, which I don't think is necessarily enough time for a single vernacular name to have become well-established. One website that comes up prominently in Google searches (for the scientific name as well as "hairy-nosed" and "bristle-faced") uses "bristle-faced free-tailed bat" as a header and "hairy-nosed freetail bat" in running text ("hairynose" would be a parallel construction to "freetail"; using an -ed adjective for one term, but not another is inconsistent). Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Rhinoceros subspecies drafts

I am reviewing two drafts on subspecies of rhinoceros, Draft:Indonesian Javan rhinoceros and Draft:Chobe black rhinoceros. Each of these drafts is a two-sentence stub. My question is whether identified subspecies are considered notable ipso facto, or whether they should be left as redirects to the species. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

If nothing better than that is offered, I don't think they're warranted. It should theoretically be possible to write long enough articles about them that would justify splitting, but those sure aren't that. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The Javan one should be redirected to the species article. With all other groups extinct it is the only extant sub-species, and it would take significant work to generate something specific enough that it would make sense to split it off into a sub-article. CMD (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Subspecies are not automatically considered notable the way the project assumes for species. However, they can be given articles when there is sufficient material to split them from the species article. There are quite a few subspecies articles for the charismatic big mammals.

• Some authorities recognise 6-8 subspecies of black rhino, e.g. MSW3 recognises six including the Chobe black rhino. However, a 2020 IUCN assessment of the black rhino discusses recent genetic analyses and concluded there are only three subspecies. It doesn't mention the Chobe black rhino. Given it is extinct or has "only one surviving specimen in Botswana", it seems unlikely that there will be enough material for a substantial article, even if the subspecies is recognised.
• There are subspecies articles on the two extinct Javan rhino subspecies, Rhinoceros sondaicus annamiticus (Vietnamese Javan rhino or Indochinese Javan rhino) and Rhinoceros sondaicus inermis (lesser Indian rhinoceros), so it would make sense to have an article on the extant subspecies. However, I wonder how easy it would be to separate the information on the species and subspecies. I also have a problem with the names Indonesian Javan rhino and Vietnamese Javan rhino. I doubt these were ever common names used for the animals. They seem more adjectival qualifications for extinct mainland rhinos that are now assigned to the Javan rhino species (i.e. Javan rhinos in Vietnam and Indonesia). If they weren't extinct outside Java, this rhino would have a different name (e.g. Lesser one-horned rhino).

In short, while subspecies articles could be justified, there is no value in having stub articles. If the main species articles are expanded and the subspecies sections get too large, then a split could be in order. However, this seems unlikely to happen. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I wonder if the subspecies linked at Javan rhinoceros really need those stub articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I would say that they are slightly beyond stubs, so acceptable as the status quo. However, I don't think they are that useful as they are or have much scope for future expansion, so I'd oppose their creation if they didn't already exist. A merger with appropriate expansion of the taxonomy and conservation sections could improve the main article, even though it is a featured article. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ralphie the Buffalo

Ralphie the Buffalo has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Pampas cat#Requested move 11 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Pampas cat#Requested move 11 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Requested move 24 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Even-toed ungulate#Requested move 24 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Odd-toed ungulate#Requested move 8 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Odd-toed ungulate#Requested move 8 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Deer#Requested move 24 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Deer#Requested move 24 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Mesonychid#Requested move 11 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mesonychid#Requested move 11 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sir David's long-beaked echidna#Requested move 11 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sir David's long-beaked echidna#Requested move 11 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lutung#Requested move 13 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lutung#Requested move 13 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Request: Handbook of the Mammals of the World Vol. 9 - Bats

I am currently in search of the "Handbook of the Mammals of the World, Vol. 9 - Bats" to aid in improving related articles. Unfortunately, due to the high cost, obtaining a copy has proven challenging for me.

If any members have access to the handbook and are willing to share it, I would deeply appreciate it. I'm currently working on trying to improve the bat articles and I think the handbook would be a great reference to have.

~~~Myth Sys Myth Sys (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Pan-Primates

The redirect Pan-Primates has been nominated at RfD, and the discussion would benefit from input from those with knowledge of the subject area. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 25#Pan-Primates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge request of Leporidae into rabbit

Please see Talk:Rabbit#Merge_Leporidae_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Saadanius

Saadanius has been nominated for a 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. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

New soft-furred hedgehog (gymnures) species

There is a new paper describing new Hylomys species of soft-furred hedgehogs (gymnures) making the news today. The paper describes two new species from museum species and elevates three subspecies of Hylomys suillus to species status. The study includes an analysis of mitochondial and nuclear DNA and used morphological and biographical considerations as part of their decision. In part, it confirms earlier studies so is likely to be accepted. It also discusses the conservation and green status, so there may be IUCN assessments in the pipeline. While we should wait on acceptance elsewhere before creating new articles, a mention of the proposal in existing articles is probably warrranted.

The introduction also has a good overview of family Galericinae and discusses other recent changes, like recognition of Otohylomys for the former Hylomys megalotis. This has been accepted by the MDD (Apr 2023), but hasn't been implemented on Wikipedia. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References

—  Jts1882 | talk  09:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks! I saw the primary author of the paper (Arlo90) started the work on the Hylomys article. I cleaned it up, created some stubs, moved short-tailed gymnure to Javan short-tailed gymnure and left a disambiguation in its place, and updated a bunch of templates and listicles. Whew! That was fun. XD I only tagged some of the listicles as needing an update. I may get back to them later, but I wouldn't be upset if someone else fixed them. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: I see you have already created the articles, but I thought it worth noting here than the ASM-MDD now recognise the extra five species of Hylomys. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup. They are all made. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Wolf Populations from Blanco and Sundseth (2023). The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union.

This wikipedia article List of gray wolf populations by country needs a bit of actualization. However, we do not necessarily need to remove something to add more updated information. We could showcase the progress (or decreases) made by wolf populations with estimates of populations by time.

In "Blanco JC and Sundseth K (2023). The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union – An In-depth Analysis. A report of the N2K Group for DG Environment, European Commission." ([1])

It is said (page 8) under the sub-section : Updated information on wolf numbers in the European Union

"In 2023, wolves have been detected across all EU Member States except Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, and there are breeding packs in 23 countries. In this analysis, about 20,300 wolves have been estimated in 2023 across the EU, a figure slightly higher than the 19,400 wolves estimated by Boitani et al. (2022) and significantly higher than the 11,193 wolves estimated in 2012. Overall, the number of wolves in the EU is increasing."

There are multiples pertinents tables and figures in this documents (such as table 2.2.1, figure 2.3.1, table 2.4.1 (NOTABLY), table 2.4.2 (Notably), and others)

I'm particularly busy with time. But I felt important to share this updated source that covers most European countries, so that one or many members could help out updating this article, in a cooperative manner. Thank you.Gimly24 (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

ASM's MDD v1.12 is now live

It's been live for a few days now. I meant to post here about this earlier. There are 115 deltas from 1.11 to 1.12, including the following new species:

38 species

• Calomyscus_kermanensis
• Cordimus_hooijeri
• Cryptotis_andinus
• Cryptotis_huttereri
• Dasycercus_archeri
• Dasycercus_marlowi
• Dasycercus_woolleyae
• Euryoryzomys_cerqueirai
• Hipposideros_kingstonae
• Hylomys_macarong
• Hylomys_vorax
• Leopardus_narinensis
• Lepus_saharae
• Mesechinus_orientalis
• Miniopterus_srinii
• Myotis_nustrale
• Neacomys_marci
• Nyctinomops_mbopicuare
• Oecomys_jamari
• Parablarinella_latimaxillata
• Planigale_kendricki
• Planigale_tealei
• Rattus_feileri
• Rattus_halmaheraensis
• Rattus_obiensis
• Rattus_taliabuensis
• Rhipidomys_ybyrae
• Soriculus_medogensis
• Soriculus_nivatus
• Sturnira_boadai
• Talpa_hakkariensis
• Thomasomys_lojapiuranus
• Thomasomys_pagaibambensis
• Thomasomys_shallqukucha
• Uropsilus_fansipanensis
• Uropsilus_huanggangensis
• Vernaya_meiguites
• Vernaya_nushanensis

Looks like about a third of the list already have at least a stub created! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

And one of them is Leopardus narinensis! Yes! Now I just need the IUCN to catch up to the Leopardus splits. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be nice, but we can at least create the articles for new species. New species would need fresh assessments before the IUCN will list them; splits could use the subspecies assessment, if it exists. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I note that the species list above only includes de novo new species. There are another 38 extra species due to splits and one "revalidation". There are also some lumps. The list of changes can be got from the "Diff_v1.11-v1.12.csv" file at https://zenodo.org/records/10463715. —  Jts1882 | talk  18:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Like I said, 115 deltas. de novo species are the easiest to deal with, as they generally don't have any impact on other articles, other than adding them to lists, so I looked for those, first. Splits and lumps are the more difficult changes to deal with, as the existing articles will need a fine attention to details. Moves from one genus to another (or from subgenus to genus) are somewhere in the middle. And yup, I'm looking directly at the CSV, too. I did the download from the MDD website. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like all of the additions don't meet the current standard for being added to their family/order lists (e.g. IUCN and ASM agree on a change from MSW3), though I need to check the non de novo species as well as double-check the moonrats. (I did catch the IUCN updates last month). If I'm wrong and any of these match up with our slow/conservative friends at the IUCN, please let me know! --PresN 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a manual option for the {{taxonbar}}. Just add |mdd=ID to the taxobar, e.g. for the leopard: {{Taxonbar|from=Q34706|mdd=1006022}}. If there is more than one wikidata item add the number to the parameter, e.g. for the lion {{Taxonbar|from1=Q140|from2=Q15294488 |mdd1=1006020}}.

It would be better to request an identifier on Wikidata, but my experience trying this was shall we just say discouraging. This works until someone sets it up on Wikidata.—  Jts1882 | talk  15:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll request on Wikidata. I was going to do one for IRNMG, but because that is an interim solution, the previous request was already denied. MDD should be permanent, so should be easier to get through. But yay, thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean IRMNG? It already has one IRMNG ID (P5055) that is supported by taxonbar.

I think an identifier for MDD was requested early on but there was an issue with their permalinks. The current links of form https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1006020 look stable and load fast (unlike a previous version). —  Jts1882 | talk  15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Um... not IRMNG... I misspoke but can't remember the ID db that I Was thinking of. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah... it was Mindat's taxon db. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Errr... nope. Not that, either. I know I was going to request a property, but it was already declined. Ah well. I'll put in a proposal for MDD when I have the time. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: here, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude. I just said I woud... and now have as well... here... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that (you did say "when I have the time"...), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, so if you'd said "I have time, should I? I would have said go ahead. Please comment on yours that you support merging in the info from my proposal, since there are some additional fields I included, and some that we filled in differently. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Which location is the correct place to put an initial proposal?

Anyway, we shouldn't add the manual parameters for now, as this identifier should get approved and the manual parameters would need deleting. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Use Mac's proposal. That's in the right spot. I saw that when I was about to transclude into the proposal project, so I came here with my WTF. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Now I might understand the system. I hadn't noticed that the edit option on Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science redirects to the proposal page. I have a bunch of new Species Files that need an ID. Do you know if there is a method to make a bulk request or must all be done separately? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The identifier has been created at ASM Mammal Diversity Database ID (P12560) and I've updated {{taxonbar}}. I've added a couple on Wikidata for testing, but it will need a bot to update other mammal species. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

See! Not such a difficult process. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

New citation template for ASM Mammalian Diversity Database

I've created a new template,{{cite mdd}}, for citing ASM Mammalian Diversity Database. It uses the same module as {{BioRef|asm}}, which will work identically, but I've updated the code to fix options that were broken when they changed the website. I thought thus was a good to to create a dedicated template with a documentation page.

For linking to species there are two approaches,:

1.) using {para|id}}, optionally with either |title= or both |genus= and |species=. This links to the explorer page and opens very slowly This links to a new fast taxon page.

• code 1a: {{cite mdd|id=1005993|title=''Leopardus colocola'' (G. I. Molina, 1782) |access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output 1a: "Leopardus colocola (G. I. Molina, 1782)". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
• code 1b: {{cite mdd|id=1005993|genus=Leopardus |species=colocolo' |access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output 1b: "Leopardus colocolo' (id=1005993)". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.

2.) using the |genus= and |species= parameters, which links to the treeview page and opens the species infobox.

• code: *{{cite mdd|genus=Leopardus |species=colocola|access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output: *"Leopardus colocola". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.

There is a quirk in that their permalink has a url like https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Leopardus&species=garleppi&id=1005995 where the genus and species parts don't do anything and only the third id part is needed. {{Cite mdd}} links to this page if all three of the id, genus and species parameters are included as that should be a permalink. The genus+species variant without the id (option 2) is quicker with a better output, but would break if they changed the genus assignment. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There are now links of the form https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/$1 (where $1=ID) which open the species info page rapidly. The template has been updated. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Grizzly bear subspecies

There's a conflict on Wikipedia regarding how many subspecies of grizzly bear there are. The intro text on the grizzly bear page (which mentions other North American brown bear subspecies besides U. a. horribilis) directly contradicts the page's taxobox (which treats all non-ABC Islands NA bears as being U. a. horribilis and lists the rest as "former subspecies now synonymized"). The pages for California grizzly bear, Mexican grizzly bear and Ungava brown bear treat them as extinct populations of U. a. horribilis, while the pages for other North American brown bears, as well as subspecies of brown bear, treat all these populations as distinct subspecies.

The approach should certainly be consistent across pages, but what approach should be taken? Miller et al. 2006 suggested that previous subspecies definitions of non-ABC Islands bears didn't line up with mtDNA, but made no specific synonymizations. I'm not aware of other recent works that explicitly support lumping of North American bear subspecies (but please link them if you know of any). Mychajliw et al. 2024 provisionally considered at least the California grizzly bear as a distinct subspecies, following ITIS and Wilson and Reeder 2005, but in the SOM acknowledged Miller et al. 2006 and highlighted that further work on grizzly bear taxonomy is needed. Personally, I think that the subspecies should be treated as separate here unless there's explicit support for lumping in the literature. What do you all think? Shuvuuia (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Handbook of Mammals of the World still recognized 14 extant subspecies, and the text seems to imply that two extinct subspecies (californicus and crowtheri) are also still valid. Ucucha (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've went ahead and made edits. If no taxonomic authority supports NA grizzly bear synonymy, and since Miller et al. 2006 does not perform an explicit taxonomic revision, I would argue it is misleading to present the synonymy as a done deal. Better to explain that things are uncertain at the moment (e.g. de Jong et al. 2023 recovered Kodiak and Alaskan Peninsula bears as within a Eurasian clade and separate from other North American bears entirely) and further work is needed. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)