Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

WikiProject Mammals was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on February 2010.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 150 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! --Pres N 20:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Koala Bear" in Koala article

This post seeks consensus for the removal of the phrase ”sometimes called the koala bear” from the lead of the Koala article, or if not, it at least be qualified. My contention is that the phase is both erroneous and misleading.

I only registered as an editor on Wikipedia recently, joining on the 1st of August, although I have been editing informally for many years. One if the first things I noted was the use of “koala bear” in the Koala article. To somebody of my background as an Australian with an interest in wildlife, that is a complete nonsense.

Reading some of the history on the talk page it became obvious removing the term would be contentious, so I decided to try to introduce “erroneously” into the article as a compromise qualifier. I left a note outlining my proposal and reasons on the talk page, and five days later, there being no response, added the word. It was immediately reverted, and surprisingly I was accused of vandalism. It was suggested that I seek consensus on this page and thus here I am.

I only ask you take the time to properly consider my arguments. I would prefer that the phrase “sometimes called the koala bear” be removed from the lead, but if not, it be at least qualified.

My arguments are as follows:

1. The lead is not consistent with other articles in Wikipedia where similar issues arise.

An example is the article on the pronghorn, where former common names such as pronghorn antelope are dealt with further down the lead and are qualified. Ironically, there is a far greater difference, both in appearance and in terms of taxonomy, between a koala and a bear, than there is between a pronghorn and an antelope.

2. Given the other problems of the name, “koala bear” is not an important enough name to include in the first line of the article, nor is it necessary.

Wikipedia commonly offers alternative common names in the introduction to articles on animal species. This is useful in assisting the casual reader who may know the animal under another name to the accepted one. This is often done in guidebooks, for example “A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia” (Menkhorst & Knight, 3d edition) where dama wallaby is offered as an alternative common name for tammar wallaby (page 116) however koala bear is not offered as an alternative common name for koala (page 86). It seems very unlikely that a reader coming to the article looking for “koala bear” would be confused by the lead sentence only offering “koala” as a common name.

3. The syntax of “koala bear” has the potential to mislead the casual reader as to the taxonomic status of the species.

In English language grammar, we place adjectives before a noun. Thus, we talk of a “big house” or a “blue dress”. This is reflected in binomial English common names for members of the Animal Kingdom. “Sloth bear” refers to a bear that resembles a sloth, while “bear cuscus” refers to a cuscus that resembles a bear. This form of nomenclature is very well understood by the general public. “Koala bear” is unique (happy to be corrected) in that the adjective is placed after the noun, which at the least is confusing. That is, of course, unless you believe the koala to be a bear.

This leaves the potential for an uninformed reader to believe that koalas are a type of bear. Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) appears to believe this to be a real issue as they bluntly start their article with "Koalas are not bears—they’re marsupials".

It has been argued that this problem with the name is discussed in the article. This is true; however, it is buried in the middle of a long and technically dense article. Many readers will only skim the introduction, an issue that is recognised in WP:LEAD. The problem is not helped by “koala bear” being highlighted in bold.

It has also been argued that the next sentence describes the koala as a marsupial. Again, it needs a certain level of education about animals to know that a bear cannot be a marsupial.

4. “sometimes” in this context is a weasel word.

The word “sometimes” in this context invites questions: who? where? when? The statement “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears” is correct. But without qualification it is potentially misleading, because the species has never been called grizzly bears across most of its historical range. Better to qualify the statement, eg: “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears in America”.

5. Where is the reference?

After having some of my other edits deleted because of a lack of references, and learning how contentious this name is I was surprised that nobody had referenced “koala bear”, so I decided to give it a go.

Firstly, a reference for “koala” as a name: AMTC Species List | The Australian Mammal Society Inc.

I did a search for “koala bear” on Bing (don’t ask). The first link was to Wikipedia, the next four were as follows:

Koala | Appearance, Diet, Habitat, & Facts | Britannica (in lead) “Due to the animal’s superficial resemblance to a small bear, the koala is sometimes referred to, albeit erroneously, as the koala bear.”

Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) (first line) “Koalas are not bears – they’re marsupials.”

Koala - WWF-Australia | Koala | WWF Australia (about halfway down the page) “You may have heard this iconic animal is also called the ‘koala bear’. Despite its endearing charm, this nickname can be very misleading. Koalas are marsupials and thus have no relation to bears.”

Koala - The Australian Museum No mention of “bear”.

It seems to me none of these sites could be used to reference the current lead sentence to the article. Yes, there were travel sites and personal sites further down that did use “koala bear” but nothing that could be described as “reliable” when talking about koalas.

The above references also support my original contention, that is using the term “koala bear” is both erroneous and misleading. --Corythaeola (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This again...? Well, admittedly the last merry-go-round was 4 years back. Please see Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate". Setting aside the occasional incivility in that discussion (cough), the takeaway was something like a) the "bear" part is absolutely in use, if not frequently, and should thus be mentioned prominently; and b) whether to call this out as "erroneous" or "inaccurate" in the lede is open to discussion - which at this point seems to have come down to not doing so (the right choice, IMO). I suggest reading that section to find out what we have already been over. Given current coverage, I doubt the angle of claiming that the poor reader has to be protected from false bear-ness will carry much weight. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me that link. The discussion certainly went places I would not want this to go.

As far as I could see, discussion came down largely to an argument between mostly Americans and mostly Australians. I'm not surprised, at my work the only people who call it a koala bear are American tourists. The most frequent question from them after "what is its name?" is "are they really bears?".

Please help me out here, the box at the top is some sort of summary or ruling? It reads The normal editing cycle can refine such indication but in the meantime, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As near as can be determined, the "proposal to modify material" stems from this edit removing "inaccurately". Based on this should not "inaccurately" still be in the lead? Or was consensus sort to change that in the meantime.

I wonder what the response would be if "Pronghorn" was edited to include "sometimes called pronghorn antelope" in the lead sentence? Actually, I think that article treats older, misleading names very well, and I would be more than happy if Koala was edited in a similar manner. Corythaeola (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word appears to have been removed almost exactly a year ago [1], with - you are correct - none of the discussion that should have happened at that point. I would advise against simply changing it back now though, since a year of no objections for a heavily trafficked article does confer some weight of consensus (if a weak one). - WRT pronghorn, "koala bear" usage by the rough measure of Google hits is 10x more common in usage. At 4 million hits it is frankly at a level were it would be excessively prescriptive to omit it from the lede, I think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for an adjective misleadingly is probably better than erroneously or inaccurately; vernacular names are not required to line up with formal taxons. To add to the examples already given the Barbary ape is a monkey, the ant-lion is an insect, she-oaks are not oaks, slippery elms are not elms, Russian thistles are not thistles, and Guinea chestnuts are not chestnuts. Koala bear may be on the way out (I used it 50 years ago; I don't use it now), but until it becomes an archaism it's worthy of inclusion. I suspect that koala bear persists more strongly with regards to plushes (from the influence of teddy bear); the bear morpheme also carries over to drop bear. Closer examples include marsupial lion, marsupial mole, marsupial mouse and marsupial shrew. Thylacine gives Tasmanian tiger and Tasmanian wolf as vernacular names. I think that article is fine without an adjective. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has to describe things reflecting the real world, not the world one wishes it to be. The koala is often called the koala bear and this is an easily established fact. No one argues it is a true bear, it is just a vernacular name that is widely used in the English language. There are many other cases, such as golden moles, which are not true moles, and South American foxes, e.g. Darwin's fox and Andean fox, which are not true foxes. With birds there are more examples, e.g. the European blackbird is a thrush rather than a blackbird and let's not touch warblers, babblers and finches. — Jts1882 | talk 16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]